wascuc table 7.1 inventory of educational effectiveness

WASCUC Table 7.1

Inventory of Educational Effectiveness Indicators

Table of Contents

University of Southern California

1

General Education Program 5

School of Architecture 6

Roski School of Fine Arts 12

Iovine and Young Academy 18

Bovard College 22

Marshall School of Business 26

Leventhal School of Accounting 37

School of Cinematic Arts 39

Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism 43

School of Journalism 43

School of Communication 47

Kaufman School of Dance 50

Ostrow School of Dentistry 51

Independent Health Professions at the Ostrow School of Dentistry (Biokinesiology and Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy) 55

Dramatic Arts 58

Rossier School of Education 61

Viterbi School of Engineering 72

Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering 72

Astronautics and Space Technology 84

Biomedical Engineering 88

WASCUC Table 7.1


Table of Contents


2

Mork Family Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science 94

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering 107

Computer Science 123

Ming Hsieh Department of Electrical Engineering 148

Daniel J. Epstein Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering 163

Green Technologies 173

Davis School of Gerontology 176

Gould School of Law 179

Dornsife College of Letters, Arts & Sciences 184

American Studies and Ethnicity 184

Anthropology 184

Art History 185

Biological Sciences 185

Chemistry 188

Classics 189

Comparative Literature 190

Earth Sciences 191

East Asian Languages and Cultures 192

East Asian Area Studies 192

Economics 193

WASCUC Table 7.1


Table of Contents


3

English 195

Environmental Studies 196

French and Italian 198

Gender Studies 199

History 199

International Relations 200

Latin American and Iberian Cultures 201

Linguistics 201

Mathematics 202

Middle-East Studies 204

Neuroscience 204

Philosophy 205

Physics and Astronomy 205

Political Science 206

Psychology 208

Religion 209

Slavic Languages and Literatures 210

Sociology 210

Spatial Sciences Institute 210

Keck School of Medicine 212

WASCUC Table 7.1


Table of Contents


4

Thornton School of Music 232

School of Pharmacy 246

School of Policy, Planning, and Development 257

School of Social Work 264

USC General Education Program

5

Program

(1)

Have formal learning

outcomes been

developed?

(2)

Where are these learning outcomes

published?

(Please specify)

(3)

Other than GPA, what data/evidence is used to determine

that graduates have achieved stated outcomes for the degree? (e.g., capstone course, portfolio review, licensure examination)

(4)

Who interprets the evidence?

What is the process?

(5)

How are the findings used?

(6)

Date of last program

review for this degree

program

For the general education program as a whole:

Yes For the program as a whole: PLO link

In each GE Seminar, both formative and summative student evaluations taken; in the larger distributional requirements, assessment differs by USC School and learning objective.

In the GE Seminars, first the faculty member, then the Dornsife Vice Dean and Associate Dean. The School Deans are responsible for each School’s distributional courses.

To monitor whether each course continues to satisfy the category’s goals.

2016

Core Requirement GE-A:

The Arts

Yes PLO-link Differ by course Faculty To refine course materials 2016

Core Requirement GE-B:

Humanistic Inquiry

Yes PLO link Differ by course Faculty To refine course materials 2016

Core Requirement GE-C:

Social Analysis


Core Requirement GE-D:

Life Sciences


Core Requirement GE-E: Physical Sciences


Core Requirement GE-F: Quantitative Reasoning


Global Perspectives Requirement GE-G: Citizenship in a Diverse World


Global Perspectives Requirement GE-H: Traditions and Historical Foundations


http://dornsife.usc.edu/2015ge/

http://dornsife.usc.edu/2015ge/ge-a/

http://dornsife.usc.edu/2015ge/ge-b/

http://dornsife.usc.edu/2015ge/ge-c/

http://dornsife.usc.edu/2015ge/ge-d/

http://dornsife.usc.edu/2015ge/ge-e/

http://dornsife.usc.edu/2015ge/ge-f/

http://dornsife.usc.edu/2015ge/ge-g/

http://dornsife.usc.edu/2015ge/ge-h/

USC School of Architecture

6

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)



(4)



(5)


(6)



program

School of Architecture Yes, in response to the particular standards for professional accreditation, current demands of the profession as well as to ensure all seven degree programs remain academically competitive to our peer institutions

The list of learning objectives for each program is listed on the School of Architecture website. This page can be reached by visitors through the Architecture Programs and at Applicants and Families web page. See comments for each program below

All faculty are assigned at both mid-term and finals to sit in on other faculty courses to review and contribute to the ongoing study of that particular course. This allows a flow of communication and evaluation for the Administration, Four Discipline Heads and Year Coordinators of progress in a relatively immediate and up to date format. All students in Architecture and Landscape Architecture (the four largest programs) submit final portfolios at the end of each semester and typically approximately eight faculty involved in that year's curriculum grade and evaluate the work in a collective review process to ensure fairness and evaluation of educational goals and outcomes reached.

The Dean, Associate Dean, the elected Executive Committee, and four Discipline Heads (Architecture, Landscape Architecture, Heritage Conservation, and Building Science) review student written faculty evaluations, grade distribution patterns, and other indicators each year. Each year level has a coordinator who reports to the Discipline Head on faculty performance and curricular effectiveness. The School of Architecture has created midterm and final review processes that engage all faculty and students twice a semester. The Curriculum Committee (which meets twice a month) holds responsibility to ensure that required courses address the expected outcomes for both continued accreditation as well as the current professional and academic demands of the discipline.

Findings from annual reviews of faculty, course reviews of students and public mid-term and final reviews involving all students and faculty allow the Discipline Heads to make constant adjustment in both curricular plans and faculty placement. Findings from NAAB and LAAB accreditation visits are continually evaluated (with a NAAB report submitted annually) to ensure any program weaknesses to be addressed.1

See individual for each program

Architecture (B.Arch.) Yes School of Architecture website Course syllabi.

Ten semesters of design studio courses are the core of this degree, culminating in final degree project and degree paper.

Faculty members have many opportunities to observe student performance and discuss program

Syllabus revision and other course improvements;

Jan. 2014

1 National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB) and Landscape Architecture Accreditation Board (LAAB)

http://arch.usc.edu/learning-objectives-students-usc-architecture

http://arch.usc.edu/learning-objectives-students-usc-architecture

http://arch.usc.edu/programs

http://arch.usc.edu/programs

http://arch.usc.edu/information/applicants-and-families

http://arch.usc.edu/information/applicants-and-families


7

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)



(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Evaluation of learning outcomes by a task force on design education is ongoing A summary of efforts is published annually in INDEX which contains selected Student Work from the USC School of Architecture.

PLO link

GRADES/FACULTY EVALS: Minimum grade of C to progress to next course in design studio sequence; DIRECT ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT WORK FROM OTHER SOURCE: Midterm & end-of-semester presentations with guest critics; public presentations when appropriate; thesis or design research studies; OUTSIDE ASSESSMENT: NAAB-accredited program; accreditation based on student performance criteria as well as other factors. SURVEY DATA: Formal student evaluations of courses & faculty processed every semester.

effectiveness due to small studio courses (15 students max) and cross-studio faculty participation on midterm and final reviews. Committees of faculty members and outside guests review student design studies at least twice a semester; meetings of faculty at each year level discuss program effectiveness. Frequent discussions b/t faculty and Discipline Head of Architecture and Undergraduate Director focus on learning issues across year levels to ensure appropriate and coordinated pedagogical objectives.

Faculty evaluations regarding teaching assignments, mentoring, renewal of appointments, faculty recruitment;

Architectural Studies (B.S.) Yes School of Architecture website Course syllabi. Evaluation of learning outcomes by a task force on design education is ongoing A summary of efforts is published annually in INDEX which contains selected Student Work from

Four semesters of design studio courses and core curriculum culminating in a capstone course. GRADES/FACULTY EVALS: Minimum grade of C to progress to next course in design studio sequence; DIRECT ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT WORK FROM OTHER SOURCE: Midterm and end-of-semester presentations with guest critics; public presentations when appropriate; thesis or design research studies.

Faculty members have many opportunities to observe student performance and discuss program effectiveness due to small studio courses (15 student max) and cross-studio faculty participation on midterm and final reviews. Committees of faculty members and outside guests review student design studies at least twice a semester; meetings of faculty at each year level discuss program effectiveness. Frequent

Syllabus revision and other course improvements; Creating sub-specialization areas for capstone project. Faculty evaluations regarding teaching assignments, mentoring, renewal of appointments, faculty recruitment;

Jan 2014

https://arch.usc.edu/bachelor-of-architecture-learning-objectives


8

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)



(4)



(5)


(6)



program

the USC School of Architecture. PLO link

Success rates for our graduates to gain access to professional master programs in Architecture or other related fields after graduation.

discussions between faculty and Undergraduate Director as well as coordinator for this degree focus on learning issues across year levels to ensure appropriate and coordinated pedagogical objectives for a pre-professional degree.

Architecture (M.Arch.) Yes School website Information packet distributed to incoming students. Course syllabi A summary of efforts is published annually in INDEX which contains selected Student Work from the USC School of Architecture.

PLO link

Completion of independent study project: either Thesis or Directed Design research. GRADES/FACULTY EVALS: Minimum 3.0 GPA required for M.Arch. degree; DIRECT ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT WORK FROM OTHER SOURCE: Formal presentation of student works reviewed & evaluated by guest critics; OUTSIDE ASSESSMENT: NAAB-accredited program; accreditation based on student performance criteria as well as other factors. SURVEY DATA: Formal student evaluations of courses & faculty processed every semester.

Faculty members are part of several sub-groups that evaluate and review student performance. Every semester includes two formal presentations to a panel of internal and guest critics. Graduate program directors meet bi-monthly to discuss overall curriculum culture. All faculty encouraged to discuss progress and performance of courses and students with program directors and Discipline Head of Architecture.

Curricular improvements and syllabus revisions. Faculty evaluations used to review teaching methods and topics, including faculty appointments and recruitment.

Jan 2014

Architecture (M.AAS) Yes School website Information packet distributed to incoming students;

Completion of independent study project: either Thesis or Directed Design research.

Jan 2014

https://arch.usc.edu/bachelor-of-science-architectural-studies-learning-objectives

https://arch.usc.edu/master-of-architecture-learning-objectives


9

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)



(4)



(5)


(6)



program

A summary of efforts is published annually in INDEX which contains selected Student Work from the USC School of Architecture. PLO link

GRADES/FACULTY EVALS: Minimum 3.0 GPA required for M.Arch. degree; DIRECT ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT WORK FROM OTHER SOURCE: Formal presentation of student works reviewed & evaluated by guest critics; SURVEY DATA: Formal student evaluations of courses & faculty processed every semester.

Landscape Architecture + Urbanism (M.L. Arch.)

Yes School website Information packet distributed to incoming students Course syllabi A summary of efforts is published annually in INDEX which contains selected Student Work from the USC School of Architecture. PLO link

Completion of independent study project: Thesis or Directed Design Research. GRADES/FACULTY EVALS: Minimum 3.0 GPA required for MLA degree; DIRECT ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT WORK FROM OTHER SOURCE: Midterm and end-of-semester presentations with guest critics; public presentations when appropriate; thesis or design research studies; OUTSIDE ASSESSMENT: The LAAB accreditation process based on student performance criteria and other factors; SURVEY DATA: As a new program, only focus groups have been used to-date; formal student evaluations

Faculty have multiple opportunities to observe student performance and discuss program effectiveness; three-member faculty committees support and assess thesis/design research studies and outcomes; committees of faculty members and outside guests review student design studies at least twice a semester; meetings of faculty to discuss program effectiveness; frequent discussions between faculty, the Discipline Head of Landscape and program director about learning issues.

Syllabus revision and other course improvements; Faculty evaluations regarding teaching assignments, mentoring, renewal of appointments, faculty recruitment, and adjustment of criteria for new student admission.

Jan 2018

https://arch.usc.edu/master-of-advanced-architectural-studies-learning-objectives

https://arch.usc.edu/master-of-landscape-architecture-and-urbanism-learning-objectives


10

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)



(4)



(5)


(6)



program

of courses and faculty processed every semester.

Building Science (M.B.S.) Yes School website Students receive a letter after application that describes program objectives and process by which objectives are achieved. PLO link

Students complete a thesis and make four public presentations during development and a final public presentation at culmination. Written thesis must be accepted by committee members and university. GRADES/FACULTY EVALS: Minimum 3.0 GPA required for MBS degree; DIRECT ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT WORK FROM OTHER SOURCE: During thesis semesters, students are given exercises to assist in clarifying thesis problem, process, and developing results. Students are encouraged to submit abstracts and papers to national and international conferences. Classes prepare students in specific technical areas (such as lighting or acoustics), and students often enter competitions in those areas. OUTSIDE ASSESSMENT: Students regularly successful in external competitions and achieving publication. Some graduates continue on to Ph.D. programs, and there is also significant representation in architecture, engineering, and consulting firms and government agencies.

Small program size facilitates direct and constant contact between the Building Science Discipline Head, the program directors, core Building Science faculty, thesis committee members, students, and active community of alumni who sit as guests on thesis committees. Two dinners a year are held at home of program director to which students, faculty, and recent graduates are invited. There is significant feedback. Anonymous feedback opportunities are offered twice each semester through a “Survey Monkey” website.

Faculty evaluations are used to guide teaching assignments. Course evaluations used to adjust course syllabi, teaching methods and topics of interest. Student input and faculty discussion should be used in hiring strategy.

Jan 2014

https://arch.usc.edu/master-of-building-science-learning-objectives


11

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)



(4)



(5)


(6)



program

SURVEY DATA: Student evaluations of courses and faculty processed every semester. The faculty program director maintains contact with a substantial percentage of alumni (more than half), and prepares an annual “yearbook” documenting the work of students and the successes of alumni and faculty. Anecdotal evidence of satisfaction is high, but there is no staff structure to assemble numerical data or track alumni.

Heritage Conservation (M.H.C.) Yes School website PLO link

GRADES/FACULTY EVALS: Minimum 3.0 GPA required for MHP degree; DIRECT ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT WORK FROM OTHER SOURCE: Thesis-prep seminar and thesis; OUTSIDE ASSESSMENT: Internships and employment SURVEY DATA: Formal student evaluations of courses and faculty processed every semester. To date, we have several dozen graduates from the program so have conducted no surveys, but graduates seem pleased.

The Heritage Conservation Discipline Head, program director and faculty meet to discuss proposed program changes. Due to the small program size, the students and faculty have significant interaction and almost constant feedback.

New courses are proposed (or adjusted), additional means are sought to enhance student experience.

Program was reviewed and approved by the National Council for Preservation Education in 2005 and remains in good standing.

https://arch.usc.edu/master-of-heritage-conservation-learning-objectives

USC Gayle Garner Roski School of Art and Design

12

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)

Where are these learning outcomes published?

(Please specify)

(3)

Other than GPA, what data/evidence is used to determine that graduates have achieved stated

outcomes for the degree? (e.g., capstone course, portfolio review,

licensure examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)

Date of last program review for

this degree program

Bachelor of Art in Art (B.A.)

Yes2 Educational effectiveness is evaluated based on student learning, student success, and institutional learning and improvement.

• Every course syllabus; syllabi are distributed to every student in the class.

• All digital versions of the syllabi are housed in the front office.

• Most classes are posted on Blackboard, and some are also posted on the USC Schedule of Classes.

• The USC Roski School of Art and Design website lists goals and learning outcomes for media areas

• PLO

• Faculty evaluations or portfolio reviews

• All 400-level studio courses are designed to provide students with professional-level experiences and to help them shape the individual direction of their work. Many 400-level courses provide exhibition opportunities. In addition, the Design Area has an elite, invitation-only course that is project-based (DES 432).

• The work of many students receives evaluation from outside the university. For example, Design students participate in AIGA’s3 Portfolio Reviews. ART 485 Capstone students produce a website demonstrating digital portfolio and thesis. Other senior level students have exhibited their work in on-campus and off-campus exhibition spaces (e.g. Ceramics, Design, Photography, and so on).

• Capstone Course – ART 485 or DES 494a/b.

• Senior Capstone online exhibition can be viewed here: https://werestillhere.myportfolio.com/)

• Art and Design instructors (process: in-class critiques, final reviews).

• Curriculum Committee made up of the faculty from all areas of the school - Foundation, Art 2D, 3D, 4D, Critical Studies, and Design. Committee’s charge is to review existing courses for the effectiveness of courses offered and propose revisions where needed.

• USC Roski Leadership Team (process: representatives from all media areas meet).

• Individual internal reviews within areas and regular monthly meetings.

• The Design faculty participate in professional organizations such as AIGA-Los Angeles chapter.

• Critical Studies faculty judge all outcomes in their classes, and participate when requested in reviewing art and design work and exhibitions.

These findings are regularly used by the dean, chair, faculty and advising staff to determine the educational effectiveness of each course, and if necessary, to make course and/or curricular revisions.

2009-2010

2 First, a clearly defined sequence of classes provides the student with necessary technical and conceptual tools for a successful undergraduate degree. Secondly, each course has clearly stated goals and formal learning outcomes. And finally, this degree, with its fewer studio requirements than the BFA degree, has as its goal to produce students with dual degrees or a major/minor combination. Very strong BA students also compete to enter Master of Fine Arts programs, although this is not a primary goal of this degree program. 3 American Institute of Graphic Arts (AIGA) –one of the oldest and most established professional organizations for design

https://roski.usc.edu/sites/default/files/RoskiBAProgramOutcomes_0.pdf

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/werestillhere.myportfolio.com/__;!!LIr3w8kk_Xxm!82GawMaMREIGM00rcApfWBDJFZ8Hk-GrhzrGhOK_yWxmjFmgDeuav0hgIy1nmyT-EjMG$



13

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


(Please specify)

(3)




(4)



(5)


(6)


this degree program

Bachelor of Fine Arts in Art (B.F.A.)

Yes4 Educational effectiveness is evaluated based on student learning, student success, and institutional learning and improvement.

• Every course syllabus; syllabi are distributed to every student in the class.

• All digital versions of the syllabi are housed in the front office.

• Most classes are posted on Blackboard, and some are also posted on the USC Schedule of Classes.

• The USC Roski School of Art and Design website lists goals and learning outcomes for media areas.

• PLO


• All 400-level studio courses are designed to provide students with professional-level experiences and to help them shape the individual direction of their work. Many 400-level courses provide exhibition opportunities.

• The work of many students receives evaluation from outside the university. Capstone students produce an independent off-campus exhibition with an accompanying website demonstrating students’ portfolio and thesis. Other senior level students have exhibited their work in on-campus and off-campus exhibition spaces (e.g. Ceramics, Photography, and so on)

• Capstone courses – ART 485

• ART 494a Senior Thesis

• Senior Capstone online exhibition can be viewed here: https://werestillhere.myportfolio.com/)

• Art instructors (process: in-class critiques, final reviews)

• Curriculum Committee (process: representatives from the faculty meet and consult on the effectiveness of courses offered and proposed revisions)

• Program level learning objectives are assessed through in-class evaluation by all full-time art faculty

• Internal reviews within media areas (process: faculty within media areas meet at the end of each semester and review student work produced in a percentage of the classes in their areas or review the teaching effectiveness of faculty members.

These findings are regularly used by the dean,chair, faculty and advising staff to determine the education effectiveness of each course, and if necessary, to make course and/or curricular revisions.

2016

Bachelor of Fine Arts in Design (B.F.A.)

Yes • All courses have learning outcomes stated in their syllabi and copies of all syllabi are housed in the Roski front office.

• The school’s website details goals of the program.


• Capstone – DES 413

• Senior Thesis– DES 494a/b

• All 400-level studio courses are designed to provide students with

• Design instructors (process notes, in-class critiques, final reviews)

• Curriculum Committee (representatives from the faculty meet and consult on

New program launched fall 2018.

4 First, a clearly defined sequence of classes provides the student with necessary technical and conceptual tools for a successful undergraduate degree. Secondly, each course has clearly stated goals and formal learning outcomes. And finally, this studio intensive degree has as its goal to produce students able to enter a Master of Fine Arts program or the professional art world.

https://roski.usc.edu/sites/default/files/RoskiBFAProgramObjectives_0.pdf




14

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


(Please specify)

(3)




(4)



(5)


(6)


this degree program

• Most syllabi are found in blackboard.usc.edu and readily available.

• PLO

professional-level experiences and to help them shape the individual direction of their work. Many 400-level courses provide portfolio preparation and reviews by design faculty and outside industry professionals.

• The work of many students receives evaluation from outside the university through the advanced design courses and AIGA’s portfolio review events. The Design area has annual area shows to exhibit their work in on-campus and off-campus exhibition spaces

the effectiveness of courses offered and proposed revisions)

• Program level learning objectives are assessed through in-class evaluation by all full-time art faculty

• Internal reviews within media areas (all full-time design faculty within media areas meet at the end of each semester and review student work produced in a percentage of the classes in their areas or review the teaching effectiveness of faculty members.

Master of Fine Arts in Art (M.F.A.)

Yes5 • USC Roski website:

• Graduating students’ written thesis papers are housed in USC’s Architecture & Fine Arts Library as well as in the nationally accessible ProQuest academic website.

• Thesis exhibitions take place in our in the Roski School graduate building located in the Los Angeles Arts District or offsite at a location determined by the student and faculty. This exhibition is a culmination of studies and a way to introduce

• All first-year students participate in on-campus reviews of their work, held two times a year at the midterm and the close of the fall and spring semesters. This review provides a formal dialogue between student artists and the full MFA faculty.

• Second-year students hold a solo thesis exhibition of their visual work and submit a written thesis paper, meeting the criteria established by the USC Graduate School and under the supervision of a three-person faculty member thesis committee. These two

• The full MFA art faculty conducts four formal reviews with each first-year MFA student.

• Second year student work is evaluated primarily by individual thesis committees comprised of three faculty members. The primary requirements for the MFA thesis are a formal solo exhibition by the student in the final spring semester, a written thesis, and the completion of a written thesis class. Required in

• All findings are to the benefit of the student for the improvement of their visual, theoretical, and critical relationship to their individual art practices.

• All graduate directors meet weeky as a group with the dean in addition to regular bi-monthly meetings with the entire Roski Leadership Team regarding the directions

2016

5 The MFA Program is dialectical by nature, facilitating a progression and evolution of the student within the studio environment. Students’ visual work is reviewed by the full faculty each semester, and their written thesis papers are reviewed in the spring semester of their second year. See Questions #3 and 4 for further details.

https://roski.usc.edu/sites/default/files/RoskiBFAProgramObjectives_0.pdf


15

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


(Please specify)

(3)




(4)



(5)


(6)


this degree program

the candidate’s work to the professional world.

• Annual graduating class catalogue sent to supporters and distributed by students.

• PLO

thesis components constitute a capstone equivalent.

• Written thesis is evaluated by their thesis committee, members of which support them throughout the process of developing a thesis topic and writing the thesis. The acceptance of the completed written thesis is another indication that the students have achieved the stated outcomes for the degree.

conjunction with the solo exhibition is a committee review of the thesis exhibition and paper. https://roski.usc.edu/sites/default/files/MFA%20Art_Handbook_2019-2020FINALnoemails.pdf

and the successes of the program.

Masters in Curatorial Practices and the Public Sphere (M.A.)

Yes • MA courses have detailed syllabi with clearly stated learning outcomes.

• Graduating students’ written thesis papers are housed in USC’s Architecture & Fine Arts Library and are accessible through both the USC Library website and the nationally accessible ProQuest academic website.

• Final projects take place on campus or in the greater community.

• Documentation in the form of our print publications and/or digital documentation in a website.

• PLO

• Seminars and meetings with individual professors, the program director, and visiting lecturers with an accompanying seminar keep students in very close contact with the program.

• Written thesis: students’ final written thesis project is supported by a series of Thesis Workshops, which culminate in them choosing a supervisor, who works with them until completion.

• Written thesis is evaluated by their thesis committee, members of which support them throughout the process of developing a thesis topic and writing the thesis. The acceptance of the completed written thesis is another indication that the students have achieved the stated outcomes for the degree.

• The MA director and all Critical Studies faculty evaluate student work in relation to stated outcomes.

• The dean of the Roski School also evaluates the program as a whole.

• Individuals from the larger art community participate in student thesis committees and evaluate results. In the cases where the final project takes place in the larger community, that work is evaluated by arts professionals from all over Los Angeles.

• MA students have internship requirements with arts professionals, and those professionals serve as evaluators of student progress as well.

• All findings are regularly reviewed by MA Critical Studies faculty, and the dean, and are to the benefit of the student for the improvement of their visual, theoretical, and critical practice.

• All graduate directors have regular bi-monthly meetings and meet regularly with the entire Roski Leadership Team regarding the directions and the successes of the program.

2016.

https://roski.usc.edu/sites/default/files/RoskiMFAinArtProgramObjectives.pdf

https://roski.usc.edu/sites/default/files/MFA%20Art_Handbook_2019-2020FINALnoemails.pdf




https://roski.usc.edu/sites/default/files/RoskiMAProgramObjectives.pdf


16

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


(Please specify)

(3)




(4)



(5)


(6)


this degree program

• In addition to a written thesis, the students work together to produce a major exhibition and related public programming, supported and advised by Critical Studies faculty.

• The final written thesis and exhibition projects are capstone experiences in which groups of students perform in a professional capacity within the university or the larger art community.

Master of Fine Art in Design (M.F.A.)

Yes • USC Roski website • Graduating students’ written

thesis papers are housed in USC’s Architecture & Fine Arts Library as well as in the nationally accessible ProQuest academic website.

• Thesis projects presented at the Roski School graduate building gallery located in the Los Angeles Arts District.

• Annual graduating class catalogue. Digital version – website.

• PLO

• All students participate in on-campus reviews of their work, held four times a year at the midterm and end of each semester. All full-time design faculty participates in the review and provide a formal dialogue between student artists and faculty.

• Mid-program advancement process review requires students to meet with their individual full time-faculty committees composed of 3-4 members and department director. Formal assessment and review of students progress and thesis draft is reviewed at this point.

• Graduating students present thesis proposals and a portfolio of their visual work and submit a written thesis paper, meeting the criteria established by the USC Graduate School. These two thesis

• The full design faculty conducts four formal reviews with each first-year MFA student. Reviews are held at midterm and final exam periods of the USC academic calendar.

• Each student’s mid-program assessment occurs in the DES 550 Advancement course. First-year students must pass the course to advance into the final year.

• Second year student work is evaluated in-depth by their individual thesis committees comprised of three faculty members, faculty chair and meets a minimum of four times a year.

• The primary requirements for the MFA thesis are a formal thesis project (which can include a public exhibition) by

• All findings are regularly reviewed by MFA design faculty, design faculty and the dean, and are to the benefit of the student for the improvement of their visual, theoretical, and critical practice.

• All graduate directors have regular bi-monthly meetings and meet regularly with the entire Roski Leadership Team regarding the directions and the successes of the program.

New Program, launched Fall 2018. Substantive Change: Additional Location or Branch Campus Report submitted and approved

https://roski.usc.edu/sites/default/files/%20MFA%20Design%20Objectives.pdf


17

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


(Please specify)

(3)




(4)



(5)


(6)


this degree program

components constitute a capstone equivalent.

the student in the final spring or summer semester, a written thesis, and the completion of a written thesis class, DES594a/b. A formal committee review and oral defense of the thesis exhibition.

USC Iovine and Young Academy

18

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




(4)



(5)


(6)

Date of last program review for this degree

program

Arts, Technology and the Business of Innovation (B.S.)

Yes • Every course syllabus

• This documentation is also included in the Schedule of Classes, or Blackboard

• PLO

• Regularly occurring faculty evaluations that assess student learning through assignments, and interim projects. Final projects, for each class, which must meet strict learning outcomes, are assessed by the full faculty body in public presentations, providing extensive oversight to the assessment process. External experts provide industry and field metrics for assessment. Learning outcomes are documented in papers, projects, and presentation decks.

• Learning at the freshman, sophomore, and junior levels is continually tested in curricular and extra-curricular professionalizing experiences, accomplished through project collaborations with industry, research, and non-profit sectors. Examples include Innovators Forum (ACAD 174), Design Strategy (ACAD 360), and Discerning and Making (ACAD 376 and 377).

• The Garage Experience (ACAD 475ab) is the

• Iovine and Young faculty, through in-class critiques, assignments, projects, and final reviews.

• External experts in relevant fields, through in-class, in-office, and in-the-field review and critique. Expert input is regularly documented and included in student assessments by faculty.

• Iovine and Young Career Services, through careful tracking of student outcomes.

These findings are regularly used by the dean, faculty and advising staff to determine the education effectiveness of each course and, if necessary, to make course and/or curricular revisions. These may include additions or augmentations the extensive professionalizing curriculum offered by Iovine and Young.

The program was last reviewed formally in 2016. However, regular program reviews are ongoing. The dean meets weekly with IYA faculty and advising staff to review the learning experience and assess effectiveness across the breadth of the offerings. Implementation is also ongoing, and curricular updates are submitted to UCOC each year.

https://iovine-young.usc.edu/assets/1623/src/AcademyProgramOutcomes.pdf


19

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




(4)



(5)


(6)


program

program’s 1-year capstone. Outcomes are assessed and documented as above, with critique and evaluation provided by faculty and external evaluators.

• Internships, jobs, awards, venture funding, graduate school offers, and other external metrics are carefully tracked and assessed by the school’s Career Services division.

Integrated Design, Business and Technology (M.S.)

Yes • Every Course Syllabus

• This documentation is included on the 2U LMS

• PLO

• Regularly occurring faculty evaluations that assess student learning through assignments, and interim projects. Final projects, for each class, which must meet strict learning outcomes, are assessed by the full faculty body in public presentations, providing extensive oversight to the assessment process. External experts provide industry and field metrics for assessment. Learning outcomes are documented in papers, projects, and presentation decks.

• Learning at all levels is continually tested in curricular and extra-


• External experts in relevant fields, through in-class, in-office, and in-the-field review and critique. Expert input is regularly documented and included in student assessments by faculty.


These findings are regularly used by the dean, faculty and advising staff to determine the education effectiveness of each course and, if necessary, to make course and/or curricular revisions. These may include additions or augmentations the extensive professionalizing curriculum offered by Iovine and Young.

This program launched in Fall 2017. Regular program reviews are ongoing. The dean meets weekly with IYA faculty and advising staff to review the learning experience and assess effectiveness across the breadth of the offerings. Implementation is also ongoing, and curricular

https://design.usc.edu/academics/


20

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




(4)



(5)


(6)


program

curricular professionalizing experiences, accomplished through project collaborations with industry, research, and non-profit sectors. Examples include Integrated Practices Residential (IDSN 510), Professional Practices Residential (IDSN 515) and Integrated Project (IDSN 545).

• The Capstone Project (IDSN 585) is the program’s capstone. Outcomes are assessed and documented as above, with critique and evaluation provided by faculty and external evaluators.

• Jobs or career advancement, awards, venture funding, and other external metrics are carefully tracked and assessed by the school's Career Services division.

updates are submitted to UCOC and/or 2U each year, as needed.

Product Innovation (M.S.) Yes • Every Course Syllabus.

• This documentation is included in the Schedule of

• Regularly occurring faculty evaluations that assess student learning through assignments, and interim projects. Final projects, for each class, which must meet strict learning outcomes, are assessed by the


• External experts in relevant fields,

These findings are regularly used by the dean, faculty and advising staff to determine the education effectiveness of each course and, if necessary, to make course and/or curricular revisions.

This program is launching in Fall 2020. Regular program reviews will be ongoing. The


21

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




(4)



(5)


(6)


program

Classes or on Blackboard.

• PLO

full faculty body in public presentations, providing extensive oversight to the assessment process. External experts provide industry and field metrics for assessment. Learning outcomes are documented in papers, projects, and presentation decks.

• Learning at all levels is continually tested in curricular and extra-curricular professionalizing experiences, accomplished through project collaborations with industry, research, and non-profit sectors. Examples include Foundation Studio (PRIN510), Creator Studio (PRIN 520), and Industry Lab (PRIN 550).

• The Garage Experience (PRIN 575a and 575b) is the program’s 1-year capstone. Outcomes are assessed and documented as above, with critique and evaluation provided by faculty and external evaluators.

• Jobs or career advancement, awards, venture funding and other external metrics will be carefully tracked and assessed by the school’s Career Services division.

through in-class, in-office, and in-the-field review and critique. Expert input is regularly documented and included in student assessments by faculty.


These may include additions or augmentations the extensive professionalizing curriculum offered by Iovine and Young.

dean will meet weekly with IYA faculty and advising staff to review the learning experience and assess effectiveness across the breadth of the offerings. Implementation will also be ongoing, and curricular updates will be submitted to UCOC as needed.

https://iovine-young.usc.edu/program/ms-product-innovation.html

USC Bovard College

22

Category

(1) Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed?

Yes/No

(2) Where are these learning

outcomes published (e.g., catalog, syllabi, other

materials)?

(3) Other than GPA, what data/evidence are used to determine that graduates

have achieved stated outcomes for the degree? (e.g., capstone course,

portfolio review, licensure examination)?

(4) Who interprets the evidence?

What is the process? (5)


(6) Date of the

last program

review for this degree program.

M.S. in Human Resource Management (MSHRM)

Yes The MSHRM learning outcomes are externally available on:

• The MSHRM program webpage.

• Digital and print program brochures.

• Presentations shown to potential students during information sessions.

Learning outcomes are also internally available on:

• Course syllabi within the Canvas learning management system.

• The program outcome map.

• The program assessment map.

The MSHRM program uses a variety of evidence to determine that graduates have achieved the stated outcomes. STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOME ASSESSMENT RESULTS: Completed course assignments and final assessments are the direct forms evidence used to determine achievement of outcomes. These assignments and assessments are embedded into the courses and have been intentionally designed so that students are asked to demonstrate the outcomes when the assignment is completed. Faculty members perform learning outcome assessment by evaluating student work with an assessment rubric that measures each student’s level of achievement of the learning outcomes. STUDENT, ALUMNI, AND FACULTY SURVEY RESPONSES: Student and faculty input is important, and Bovard College reviews responses from a variety of surveys including: • A course completion survey.

• The university-wide Learning Experience Evaluation.

• A graduate survey to get alumni feedback.

• A faculty end-of-course survey to solicit input on curricular quality.

GRADES, RETENTION RATES, & GRADUATION RATES:

Faculty participate in formative assessment of students as they instruct and evaluate students in their courses on a weekly basis. There are frequent meetings and discussions between program faculty and the academic team at Bovard College that are focused on student learning and the delivery of curriculum. Additionally, through the program review process, faculty analyze program-related evidence in order to assess instructional and program quality. The rubric results from learning outcome assessment are compiled into reports and analyzed by faculty to determine if students are meeting performance expectations, and all survey results are examined in order to identify areas for instructional and curriculum improvements. The Dean of Bovard College, along with other academic personnel, evaluates student success through analysis of student retention rates, graduation rates, and other metrics (e.g., diversity data) which are provided on reports each semester and annually.

The results of student survey evaluations are used at the end of each session:

• Faculty receive the results of and use them to inform curricular and instructional improvements.

• The results are used for the purposes of faculty coaching and by the Bovard College faculty support team.

Additionally, findings are used in each step of the annual program review process:

1. The MSHRM faculty committee reviews the findings to determine if performance expectations are being met and to inform curricular and instructional decisions and future industry connections.

2. The findings and recommendations from program review are shared with all MSHRM program faculty and with the Dean of Bovard College.

3. An improvement plan is developed that is based on the review, and staff supporting the program (e.g., IT staff supporting the online resources for the program) are apprised of

August 2019 (internal)

https://bovardcollege.usc.edu/hr/hrm-program/

https://bovardcollege.usc.edu/hr/hrm-program/

USC Bovard College

23

Category

(1) Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed?

Yes/No



materials)?







(6) Date of the

last program


• Grades are used as an indirect measure of student learning.

• Retention and graduation rates are monitored and discussed each semester.

issues that require their attention.

M.S. in Project Management (MSPM)

Yes The MSPM learning outcomes are externally available on:

• The MSPM program webpage.



Learning outcomes are also internally available on: • Course syllabi within the

Canvas learning management system.



The MSPM program uses a variety of evidence to determine that graduates have achieved the stated outcomes. STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOME ASSESSMENT RESULTS: Completed course assignments, final assessments, and a final capstone project are the direct forms evidence used to determine achievement of outcomes. These assignments and assessments are embedded into the courses and have been intentionally designed so that students are asked to demonstrate the outcomes when the assignment is completed. Faculty members perform learning outcome assessment by evaluating student work with an assessment rubric that measures each student’s level of achievement of the learning outcomes. STUDENT, ALUMNI, AND FACULTY SURVEY RESPONSES: Student and faculty input is important, and Bovard College reviews responses from a variety of surveys including:

• A course completion survey.

• The university-wide Learning Experience Evaluation.

Faculty participate in formative assessment of students as they instruct and evaluate students in their courses on a weekly basis. There are frequent meetings and discussions between program faculty and the academic team at Bovard College that are focused on student learning and the delivery of curriculum. Additionally, through the program review process, faculty analyze program-related evidence in order to assess instructional and program quality. The rubric results from learning outcome assessment are compiled into reports and analyzed by faculty to determine if students are meeting performance expectations, and all survey results are examined in order to identify areas for instructional and curriculum improvements. The Dean of Bovard College, along with other academic personnel, evaluates student success through analysis of




Additionally, findings are used in each step of the annual program review process:

1. The MSPM faculty committee reviews the findings to determine if performance expectations are being met, and to inform curricular and instructional decisions and future industry connections.

2. The findings and recommendations from program review are shared with all MSPM program faculty and with the Dean of Bovard College.

3. An improvement plan is developed that is based on the review, and staff

August 2019 (internal)

https://bovardcollege.usc.edu/pm/pm-program/

https://bovardcollege.usc.edu/pm/pm-program/

USC Bovard College

24

Category

(1) Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed?

Yes/No



materials)?







(6) Date of the

last program


• A graduate survey to get alumni feedback.




• Retention and graduation rates are monitored and discussed each semester.

student retention rates, graduation rates, and other metrics (e.g., diversity data) which are provided on reports each semester and annually.

supporting the program (e.g., IT staff supporting the online resources for the program) are apprised of issues that require their attention.

M.S. in Criminal Justice (MSCJ)

Yes The MSCJ learning outcomes are externally available on:

• The MSCJ program webpage.



Learning outcomes are also internally available on:

• Course syllabi within the Canvas learning management system.



While the MSCJ program will have its first class of graduates in April 2020. It is in the process of collecting evidence that will be used to determine that graduates have achieved the stated outcomes. STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOME ASSESSMENT RESULTS: Completed course assignments, final assessments, and a final capstone project are the direct forms evidence used to determine achievement of outcomes. These assignments and assessments are embedded into the courses and have been intentionally designed so that students are asked to demonstrate the outcomes when the assignment is completed. Faculty members perform learning outcome assessment by evaluating student work with an assessment rubric that measures each student’s level of achievement of the learning outcomes.

Faculty participate in formative assessment of students as they instruct and evaluate students in their courses on a weekly basis. There are frequent meetings and discussions between program faculty and the academic team at Bovard College that are focused on student learning and the delivery of curriculum. Additionally, through the program review process, faculty will analyze program-related evidence in order to assess instructional and program quality. The rubric results from learning outcome assessment will be compiled into reports and analyzed by faculty to determine if students are meeting performance expectations, and all survey results will be examined in




Additionally, findings will be used in each step of the annual program review process:

1. The MSCJ faculty committee will review the findings to determine if performance expectations are being met, and will use the findings to inform curricular and instructional decisions and future industry connections.

Program launched May 2019.

https://bovardcollege.usc.edu/cj/cj-program/

https://bovardcollege.usc.edu/cj/cj-program/

USC Bovard College

25

Category

(1) Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed?

Yes/No



materials)?







(6) Date of the

last program


STUDENT, ALUMNI, AND FACULTY SURVEY RESPONSES: Student and faculty input is important, and Bovard College reviews responses from a variety of surveys including:

• A course completion survey. • The university-wide Learning

Experience Evaluation.

• A (future) graduate survey to get alumni feedback.




• Retention and future graduation rates are monitored and discussed each semester.

order to identify areas for instructional and curriculum improvements. The Dean of Bovard College, along with other academic personnel, evaluates student success through analysis of student retention rates, graduation rates, and other metrics (e.g., diversity data) which are provided on reports each semester and annually.

2. The findings and recommendations from program review will be shared with all MSCJ program faculty and with the Dean of Bovard College.

3. An improvement plan will be developed that is based on the review, and staff supporting the program (e.g., IT staff supporting the online resources for the program) will be apprised of issues that require their attention.

USC Marshall School of Business

26

Category

(1) Have

formal learning

outcomes been

developed?

Yes/No



materials)?

(3) Other than GPA, what data /

evidence are used to determine that graduates have achieved

stated outcomes for the degree? (e.g., capstone course,





(6) Date of the

last program


Business Administration (BS) includes the following emphases:

• Business Administration, Cinema Arts

• Business Administration, East Asian Studies

• Business Administration International Relations

• Business Administration, World Bachelor’s of Business

Yes • Course syllabi

• PLO

Core curriculum is mapped to the undergraduate learning objectives. Since the 2014-2051 academic year, the program has assessed 2 goals per year across the program’s core courses. Data collection and review is led by the team of faculty who are core coordinators for each core course. Direct Assessment

• Emphasis is on embedding assessment into existing assignments and exams through intentional sampling.

• Methods include test items, assignments, work samples.

Indirect Assessment: • Course evaluations,

University Program Review, post-graduate outcomes data, co-curricular program assessment.

At the end of each spring term, core coordinators submit their direct assessment results to Marshall’s educational program designer. Educational program designer provides core coordinator with outcomes summaries.

• Core coordinator faculty utilize outcomes data in meetings with core faculty prior to the beginning of the upcoming academic year to create plans for course improvement.

• Findings have been used to improve the Marshall undergraduate core in a number of ways including:

• In response to a disparity in assessment outcomes among sections of a single course, coordinators implemented a rule that each core course must share a minimum of 30% shared content.

• Program assessment results were used by core faculty in Introduction to Managerial Accounting along with benchmarking data from other top accounting programs to redesign the course’s curriculum.

Spring 2019

Marshall MBA Program (MBA)


• PLO

Program director and academic lead/team mapped goals to curriculum and determine when and how to directly assess individual goals based on the pace of the program.

• At the end of each school year, programs submit their direct assessment results to Marshall’s educational program designer. They are compiled and made

• Assurance of learning results are used to inform curriculum and course design. Findings will eventually guide changes in program goals.

The program is evaluated annually. The last program

https://www.marshall.usc.edu/programs/undergraduate-programs/academics/business-administration/undergraduate-program-learning-objectives

https://www.marshall.usc.edu/programs/mba-programs/full-time-mba/academics/ftmba-learning-objectives


27

Category

(1) Have

formal learning

outcomes been

developed?

Yes/No



materials)?








(6) Date of the

last program


Direct Assessment:

• Designated test items, modules embedded in assignments, rubric-graded capstone assignment and projects.

Indirect Assessment:

• Course evaluations, End of term surveys, student focus groups, Alumni surveys, Placement rates, University Program Review

available to Marshall graduate leadership. Leadership convenes program directors, faculty, including committee on graduate instruction, and staff to review outcomes and strategize improvements.

• Example: most recent results showed a gap in high-performing teams (Goals #3). As a result, additional courses focused around creating high performing teams were introduced in the following year.

evaluation was completed in Fall 2020.

The MBA Program for Professionals and Manager (MBA)


• PLO

Program director and academic lead/team mapped goals to curriculum and determine when and how to directly assess individual goals based on the pace of the program. Direct Assessment:


• Course evaluations, University Program Review, End-of-program evaluations, Surveys about job placements and salary enhancement, Learning analytics from online portion of the program

At the end of each school year, programs submit their direct assessment results to Marshall’s educational program designer. They are compiled and made available to Marshall graduate leadership. Leadership convenes program directors, faculty and staff to review outcomes and strategize improvements.


• Example: in most recent curriculum revision process, it was found that students needed the most improvement in Learning Goal #2.3 related to critical and analytical thinking. Course design has been reconfigured to address this skill, and a course in problem-solving in unstructured situations has been added.

There is a program evaluation every five years. The last program evaluation was completed in Fall 2017. The program underwent a program revision that was effective in Fall 2019. That process involved a significant program

https://www.marshall.usc.edu/programs/mba-programs/part-time-mba/program-learning-objectives


28

Category

(1) Have

formal learning

outcomes been

developed?

Yes/No



materials)?








(6) Date of the

last program


evaluation that was completed in Fall 2018.

Executive MBA Program (MBA)

Yes • Course syllabi • PLO




• Course evaluations, University Program Review

At the end of each spring term, programs submit their direct assessment results to Marshall’s educational program designer. They are compiled and made available to Marshall graduate leadership. Leadership convenes program directors, faculty and staff to review outcomes and strategize improvements.


• Example: The EMBA program is interdisciplinary by nature and is delivered in themes. Based on their assessment findings, the program leaders have added an additional focus on ethics (1.3), while maintaining their current curriculum.

Spring 2017

International MBA Program (MBA)


• PLO






• End-of-program comprehensive survey is used to determine the effectiveness of core and required courses, and to refine the sequencing of courses across terms.

Summer 2017

https://www.marshall.usc.edu/programs/mba-programs/executive-mba-program/program-learning-objectives

https://www.marshall.usc.edu/programs/mba-programs/ibear-mba/program-learning-objectives


29

Category

(1) Have

formal learning

outcomes been

developed?

Yes/No



materials)?








(6) Date of the

last program


• Course evaluations, Comprehensive end-of-program survey, University Program Review

Online Master of Business Administration (MBA)


• PLO





• Results are shared during regular program meetings with program faculty, instructional designers and program administrators.


• Example: In combination with the outcomes assessment and the observation among faculty that in-class exercises improved retention (even in an online environment), OMBA faculty have integrated “breakout group” assignments into the live class sessions.

Spring 2020

Master of Science in Business Administration (MS)


• PLO






The program is evaluated annually. The last program evaluation was completed in Fall 2020.

https://onlinemba.marshall.usc.edu/curriculum/program-learning-objectives/

https://www.marshall.usc.edu/programs/specialized-masters-programs/master-science-business-administration/program-learning-objectives


30

Category

(1) Have

formal learning

outcomes been

developed?

Yes/No



materials)?








(6) Date of the

last program



Master of Management Studies (MS)








No review, will go into next cycle agenda

Master of Science, Business Analytics (MS)






• At the end of each school year, programs submit their direct assessment results to Marshall’s educational program designer. They are compiled and made available to Marshall graduate leadership. Leadership convenes program directors, faculty and staff to review outcomes and strategize improvements.

See Appendix A


Winter 2018

Master of Science, Entrepreneurship & Innovation (MS)


Program director and academic lead/team mapped goals to curriculum and determine when

• At the end of each school year, programs submit their direct assessment results to

• Assurance of learning results are used to inform curriculum and course

Scheduled AY2021

https://www.marshall.usc.edu/programs/specialized-masters-programs/master-management-studies/program-learning-objectives

https://www.marshall.usc.edu/programs/specialized-masters-programs/master-science-business-analytics/academics/program-learning-objectives

https://www.marshall.usc.edu/programs/specialized-masters-programs/master-science-business-analytics/academics/program-learning-objectives


31

Category

(1) Have

formal learning

outcomes been

developed?

Yes/No



materials)?








(6) Date of the

last program


and how to directly assess individual goals based on the pace of the program. Direct Assessment:




Marshall’s educational program designer. They are compiled and made available to Marshall graduate leadership. Leadership convenes program directors, faculty and staff to review outcomes and strategize improvements.

See Appendix A

design. Findings will eventually guide changes in program goals.

Master of Science, Finance (MS)


• PLO





At the end of each spring term, programs submit their direct assessment results to Marshall’s educational program designer. They are compiled and made available to Marshall graduate leadership. Leadership convenes program directors, faculty and staff to review outcomes and strategize improvements. See Appendix A


Winter 2018

Master of Management in Library and Information Science (MLIM)


• PLO


A FT faculty member leads the LIM 598 course and evaluates the e-portfolios. The MMLIS Curriculum Committee routinely reviews course outcomes, with particular attention on distribution learning goals discussed and artifacts used by

• Assurance of learning results are used to inform curriculum and course design. Course review to ensure that course content across the curricula remains demonstratively

2017: American Library Association (ALA) Committee on

https://www.marshall.usc.edu/programs/specialized-masters-programs/master-science-finance/program-learning-objectives

https://librarysciencedegree.usc.edu/program-goals/

http://www.ala.org/aboutala/committees/ala/ala-coa



32

Category

(1) Have

formal learning

outcomes been

developed?

Yes/No



materials)?








(6) Date of the

last program


• LIM 598: Capstone. Students create an e-portfolio of work completed during the program in which each program learning goal (and sub-goals) is mapped to one or several artifacts of the student’s work. Students describe the connection(s) between their work and achievement of the learning goal(s).


Indirect Assessment: Course evaluations, ALA Accreditation, University Program Review

students are evenly distributed across the curriculum.

connected to MMLIS program learning goals

• Refining/updating learning outcomes as needed

Faculty coaching

Accreditation (CoA).

Master of Science, Global Supply Chain Management (online) (MS)


• PLO



• At the end of each school year, programs submit their direct assessment results to Marshall’s educational program designer. They are compiled and made available to Marshall graduate leadership. Leadership convenes program directors, faculty and staff to review


Summer 2018



https://www.marshall.usc.edu/programs/specialized-masters-programs/master-science-global-supply-chain-management/academics/program-learning-objectives


33

Category

(1) Have

formal learning

outcomes been

developed?

Yes/No



materials)?








(6) Date of the

last program




outcomes and strategize improvements.

See Appendix A

Master of Science, Global Supply Chain Management (MS)


• PLO





• At the end of each spring term, programs submit their direct assessment results to Marshall’s educational program designer. They are compiled and made available to Marshall graduate leadership. Leadership convenes program directors, faculty and staff to review outcomes and strategize improvements.

See Appendix A


Summer 2018

Master of Science, Marketing (MS)






• At the end of each spring term, programs submit their direct assessment results to Marshall’s educational program designer. They are compiled and made available to Marshall graduate leadership. Leadership convenes program directors, faculty and staff to review outcomes and strategize improvements.

See Appendix A


Self study conducted Fall 2020, remained on hold due to COVID

Master of Science, Social Entrepreneurship (MS)


Program director and academic lead/team mapped goals to

At the end of each spring term, programs submit their direct

• Assurance of learning results are used to inform

Scheduled AY2021

https://www.marshall.usc.edu/programs/specialized-masters-programs/master-science-global-supply-chain-management/academics/program-learning-objectives

https://www.marshall.usc.edu/programs/specialized-masters-programs/master-science-marketing/program-learning-objectives

https://www.marshall.usc.edu/programs/specialized-masters-programs/master-science-social-entrepreneurship/program-learning-objectives


34

Category

(1) Have

formal learning

outcomes been

developed?

Yes/No



materials)?








(6) Date of the

last program


curriculum and determine when and how to directly assess individual goals based on the pace of the program. Direct Assessment: • Designated test items,

modules embedded in assignments, rubric-graded capstone assignment and projects.



assessment results to Marshall’s educational program designer. They are compiled and made available to Marshall graduate leadership. Leadership convenes program directors, faculty and staff to review outcomes and strategize improvements.

curriculum and course design. Findings will eventually guide changes in program goals.

Master of Business for Veterans (MBV)


• PLO

Direct:

• Culminating projects (curriculum is lock-step)

Indirect:




Ongoing (Delays due to COVID-19)

Master of Medical Management (MMM)6

Yes • Course syllabi Program Closed


• Designated test items, modules embedded in

• At the end of each spring term, programs submit their direct assessment results to Marshall’s educational program designer. They are compiled and made available to Marshall graduate leadership.


No review, program now closed.

6 The Master of Medical Management program will close upon completion of final cohort in spring 2020.

https://www.marshall.usc.edu/programs/specialized-masters-programs/master-business-veterans/program-learning-objectives


35

Category

(1) Have

formal learning

outcomes been

developed?

Yes/No



materials)?








(6) Date of the

last program


assignments, rubric-graded capstone assignment and projects.



Leadership convenes program directors, faculty and staff to review outcomes and strategize improvements.

Master of Science, Food Industry Leadership7

Yes • PLO Syllabi will be submitted to the educational program designer for review. Plans are in place for the launch of this program in Fall 2020 to map curriculum to the program learning objectives. Data collection and review will be conducted by the Instructional Designer at FIL. Direct Assessment

• Emphasis is on embedding assessment into existing assignments and exams through intentional sampling.

• Methods include test items, assignments, work samples.

Indirect Assessment: Course evaluations, University Program Review, post-graduate outcomes data, co-curricular program assessment.

At the end of each term, the instructional designer will compile the results of the direct assessment results, then meet and review with the Program Director to refine course content and instructional strategies.

Assurance of learning results are used to inform curriculum and course design.

Program began Fall 2019

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) Master of Science in Business Research (MS)

In-process PLO • Screening exam and/or summer papers

• Qualifying/comprehensive exam

Data & feedback are passed on to faculty, staff, administration, and committees, as deemed appropriate.

• Courses are revised as needed The Marshall Ph.D. Committee discusses major changes & recommendations. Minor changes not impacting course

Program Review: 2017-2018

7 First cohort entered fall 2019.

https://www.marshall.usc.edu/programs/specialized-masters-programs/master-science-food-industry-leadership/program-learning-objectives

https://www.marshall.usc.edu/programs/phd-program/phd-learning-objectives


36

Category

(1) Have

formal learning

outcomes been

developed?

Yes/No



materials)?








(6) Date of the

last program


• Research assistantship supervisor feedback

• Teaching feedback completed by students at the end of every course/semester/term

• Teaching assistantship student feedback

• Dissertation proposal

• Dissertation

• Contributions to research and publications

• Publications Placements

content are handled administratively. Major changes are approved by the Associate Dean of the Marshall Ph.D. Program and the Marshall Vice Dean for Faculty and Academic Affairs.

Department UCAR reviews: every 5 years 2019: DSO & FBE 2021: ACCT & MKT 2023-2024: MOR

Appendix A: Confirming Learning Goals for Specialized Masters Programs

Each of the specialized masters programs have learning objectives consistent with the Marshall Graduate Learning Goals. Beginning with the Fall 2020 semester, the specialized masters programs will reinstate a verification process to document that the learning goals are sufficiently addressed by each program’s core curriculum. Similar to the process implemented for each program in the past:

1. The core curriculum classes are identified, along with the term offered, and the assigned instructor.

2. The assistant vice dean, academic director, and educational program designer identify the high priority learning objectives aligned with each class. A schedule is then developed

to identify the courses/instructors/terms that can provide documentation confirming a learning goal is adequately addressed.

3. To spread the work, an agreement is reached with each instructor to provide documentation for a single learning goal (although we have had two goals addressed in the past)

during a given term. Each program learning goal should get addressed by at least one core curriculum class.

4. Following the conclusion of each term, instructors submit documentation to the educational program designer, who will take inventory of the results and review them with the

assistant vice dean and academic director.

5. In cases where a learning goal is not adequately addressed within a program, the assistant vice dean and academic director will work with the proper academic department and

faculty to revise part of a class’ curriculum.

USC Leventhal School of Accounting

37

Category

(1) Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed?

Yes/No

(2) Where are these

learning outcomes published

(e.g., catalog, syllabi, other materials)?

(3) Other than GPA, what data / evidence are used to determine that graduates

have achieved stated outcomes for the degree? (e.g., capstone course, portfolio

review, licensure examination)?




(6) Date of the last

program review for this

degree program.

Master of Accounting (Post Code 14)

YES Website and Syllabi PLO

Placement rate of students; measurement of learning outcomes in key courses by assignment or project; feedback from Boards of Advisors; program rankings and licensure examinations.

Graduate Curriculum Committee members; Associate Dean for Graduate Accounting Programs; AACSB Accreditation Team.

Findings shared with faculty as curriculum is reviewed; Reported to AACSB, the accrediting body for accounting and business schools. Courses revised accordingly.

2019 Continuous Improvement/Accreditation Review by AACSB. USC UCAR Review Spring 2020.

2. Master of Business Taxation (Post Code 469)





2019 Continuous Improvement/Accreditation Review by AACSB.

3. Master of Business Taxation for Working Professionals (Post Codes 1517 and 1592


Firm sponsorship of students to attend this program; measurement of learning outcomes in key courses by assignment or project; feedback from Boards of Advisors;




4. Master of Accounting w/Data Analytics Post Code 1702


Firm sponsorships (50-100%) of majority of students; outcomes measured by assessments in core courses;




5. Bachelor of Science in Accounting Post Code 12



Leventhal Undergraduate Committee; Marshall Undergraduate Committee; Dean, Leventhal School of Accounting; AACSB Accreditation Team.



https://www.marshall.usc.edu/programs/graduate-accounting-programs/master-accounting/macc-academics

https://www.marshall.usc.edu/programs/graduate-accounting-programs/master-business-taxation/academics/program-learning-objectives

https://www.marshall.usc.edu/programs/graduate-accounting-programs/master-business-taxation-working-professionals/curriculum/student-learning-outcomes

https://www.marshall.usc.edu/programs/graduate-accounting-programs/master-accounting-emphasis-data-and-analytics/academics/program-learning-outcomes

https://www.marshall.usc.edu/programs/undergraduate-programs/academics/leventhal-school-accounting/program-learning-objectives-undergraduate-accounting

USC School of Cinematic Arts

38

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)



(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Department: Cinema & Media Studies Division Program: Cinematic Arts (Cinema and Media Studies) (B.A.)

Yes PLO Link Grades, employment, internships, academic awards, honor seminar, conferences, graduate school admission

Faculty in meetings, ad hoc subcommittees, and regular school retreats; review by divisional and school-wide curriculum committees; faculty council; alumni council; Dean’s Board of Councilors (professional advisory board); individual and group career counseling by Industry Relations office; advising by divisional Director of Undergraduate Studies

Action by school-wide curriculum committee; program and course revisions as appropriate; industry outreach programs, including panels and seminars, job board, and career fairs by Industry Relations office

2003-2004 (UCAR)

Department: Cinema & Media Studies Division Program: Cinematic Arts (Cinema and Media Studies) (M.A.)

Yes PLO link

Grades, comprehensive exams, academic awards, publications, conferences, internships, employment, Ph.D. admissions

Faculty in meetings, ad hoc subcommittees, and regular school retreats; review by divisional and school-wide curriculum committees; faculty council; alumni council; Dean’s Board of Councilors (professional advisory board); individual and group career counseling by Industry Relations office; advising by divisional Director of Graduate Studies

Action by school-wide curriculum committee; program and course revisions as appropriate; industry outreach programs, including panels and seminars, job board, and career fairs by Industry Relations office; future admissions processes for Ph.D. programs

2015-16 (UCAR)

Department: Cinema & Media Studies Division Program: Cinematic Arts (Cinema and Media Studies) (Ph.D.)

Yes PLO link

Grades, screenings/qualifying exams/oral exams, academic awards, publications, fellowships, conferences, internships, employment

Faculty in meetings, ad hoc subcommittees, and regular school retreats; review by divisional and school-wide curriculum committees; faculty council; alumni council; Dean’s Board of Councilors (professional advisory board); individual

Action by school-wide curriculum committee; program and course revisions as appropriate; industry outreach programs, including panels and seminars, job board, and career fairs by Industry Relations office; considerations of cohort size and focus for future Ph.D. admits

2012-13 (UCAR)

http://cinema.usc.edu/mediastudies/learningobj.cfm






39

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)



(4)



(5)


(6)



program

and group career counseling by Industry Relations office; advising by divisional Director of Graduate Studies

Department: Division of Film & Television Production Program: Cinematic Arts (Film and Television Production) (B.F.A.,B.A.)

Yes PLO link

Grades, capstone classes, employment, internships, film festival acceptances and awards, screenings, professional awards

Faculty in meetings, ad hoc subcommittees, and annual school retreat; review by school-wide curriculum committee; faculty council; alumni council; Dean’s Board of Councilors (professional advisory board); individual and group career counseling by Industry Relations office


2003-2004 (UCAR)

Department: Division of Film & Television Production Program: Cinematic Arts (Film and Television Production) (M.F.A)

Yes PLO link

Capstone classes, film festival acceptances and awards, screenings, internships, employment, multi-project contracts



2003-2004 (UCAR)

Department: Interactive Media & Games Division Program: Interactive Entertainment (B.A.)

Yes PLO link

Grades, capstone classes, games expo, employment, internships, successful cross-disciplinary collaboration, games and new media industry awards

Faculty in meetings, ad hoc subcommittees, and annual school retreat; review by school-wide curriculum committee; industry professional curriculum advisement; faculty council; alumni council; Dean’s Board of Councilors (professional advisory board); individual

Action by school-wide curriculum committee; program and course revisions as appropriate; public outreach events; industry outreach programs, including panels and seminars, job board, and career fairs by Industry Relations office

2003-2004 (UCAR), 2016 – 2017 (Self Study)

http://cinema.usc.edu/production/learningobj.cfm

http://cinema.usc.edu/production/learningobj.cfm

https://cinema.usc.edu/interactive/learningobj.cfm


40

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)



(4)



(5)


(6)



program

and group career counseling by Industry Relations office

Department: Interactive Media & Games Division Program: Interactive Media and Games (M.F.A.)

Yes PLO link

Games and new media industry awards, thesis show, employment, successful cross-disciplinary collaboration, multi-project contracts

Faculty in meetings, ad hoc subcommittees, and annual school retreat; review by school-wide curriculum committee; faculty council; industry professional curriculum advisement; alumni council; Dean’s Board of Councilors (professional advisory board); individual and group career counseling by Industry Relations office

Action by school-wide curriculum committee; program and course revisions as appropriate; public outreach events; industry outreach programs, including panels and seminars, job board, and career fairs by Industry Relations office

2003-2004 (UCAR), 2016 – 2017 (Self Study)

Department: John C. Hench Division of Animation & Digital Arts Program: Animation and Digital Arts (B.F.A.)

Yes PLO link

Grades, capstone class, employment, internships, film festival awards, professional awards



2003-2004 (UCAR)

Department: John C. Hench Division of Animation & Digital Arts Program: Animation and Digital Arts (M.F.A.)

Yes PLO link

Thesis show, film festival awards, industry screenings, internships, employment



2003-2004 (UCAR)

https://cinema.usc.edu/interactive/learningobj.cfm

http://cinema.usc.edu/animation/learningobj.cfm

http://cinema.usc.edu/animation/learningobj.cfm


41

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)



(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Department: Media Arts & Practice Program: Cinematic Arts (Media Arts and Practice) (B.A.)

Yes PLO Link Grades, capstone class, thesis presentation, academic awards, internships, employment, graduate school admission



N/A

Department: Media Arts & Practice Program: Cinematic Arts (Media Arts and Practice) (Ph.D.)

Yes PLO link

Grades, screening/quals/oral exams, academic awards, publications, conferences, internships, employment

Faculty in meetings, ad hoc subcommittees, and annual school retreat; review by school-wide curriculum committee; faculty council; alumni council; Dean’s Board of Councilors (professional advisory board).


2012-2013 (UCAR)

Department: Peter Stark Producing Program Program: Motion Picture Producing (M.F.A.)

Yes PLO link

Capstone class, internships, employment, professional awards



2003-2004 (UCAR)

Department: John Wells Division of Writing for Screen & Television Program: Writing for Screen and Television (B.F.A.)

Yes PLO link

Grades, capstone class, employment, internships, screenwriting competitions, professional awards, multi-project contracts

Faculty in meetings, ad hoc subcommittees, & annual school retreat; review by school-wide curriculum committee; faculty council; alumni council; Dean’s Board of Councilors (professional


2003-2004 (UCAR)

https://cinema.usc.edu/imap/learningobj.cfm

https://cinema.usc.edu/imap/learningobj.cfm

https://cinema.usc.edu/producing/learningobj.cfm

https://cinema.usc.edu/writing/learningobj.cfm


42

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)



(4)



(5)


(6)



program

advisory board); individual and group career counseling by Industry Relations office

Department: John Wells Division of Writing for Screen & Television Program: Writing for Screen and Television (M.F.A.)

Yes PLO link

Screenwriting competitions, thesis scripts, industry meetings, internships, employment, multi-project contracts

Faculty in meetings, ad hoc subcommittees, and annual school retreat; review by school-wide curriculum committee; faculty council; alumni council; Dean’s Board of Councilors (professional advisory board); individual and group career counseling by Industry Relations office; exit interviews with graduating students


2003-2004 (UCAR)

https://cinema.usc.edu/writing/learningobj.cfm

USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism

43

Category

(1) Have formal

learning outcomes been

developed?

Yes/No



materials)?








(6) Date of the

last program


Journalism (BA) Yes Catalogue and syllabi PLO

Capstone course Outside assessment/review of student work

Multiple independent outside assessors evaluate a percentage of student work in three UG classes every year

To revise the sequencing of required course work and make decisions about revisions to current required and elective courses or creation of new ones.

2016

Public Relations (BA)

Yes Catalogue and syllabi PLO

Capstone course: While there is no universal capstone project, all graduating seniors participate in a capstone class whereby they develop and present a PR plan to an actual client. Instructors engage with companies such as Disney and Sprint to determine how our students might be able to provide some special insight into a problem or challenge. The students review secondary research provided by the client, then conduct primary research (focus group, survey and/or large-scale data analysis using techniques like Crimson Hexagon) to craft a detailed PR plan that follows our proprietary planning model. The final step is to present the plan to the client organization, usually 2-5 PR and/or marketing executives. All along, the instructors are reviewing the findings and guiding the plan-writing process. The clients review the plans and provides immediate feedback to the students. For the past two years that this process has been

The projects/PR plans become the property of the client organization.

The findings are used in a variety of ways. eBay, a 2018 client, invited two students to actually present the findings to senior management; Hyundai, a 2019 client, incorporated the students’ plan into the organization’s 2020 Communication Plan; and, in Spring 2020, Union Pacific Railroad provided the students’ interview and survey results to the company’s R & D department and HR manager.

2016

https://annenberg.usc.edu/journalism/undergraduate-journalism/admissions/learning-objectives

https://annenberg.usc.edu/journalism/undergraduate-public-relations/admissions/learning-objectives


44

Category

(1) Have formal


developed?

Yes/No



materials)?








(6) Date of the

last program


employed, client organizations laud the praises of our students, often saying that the work and strategies are better than their own professionals have prepared. Specific client comments are available.

Journalism (MS)


Capstone course An independent committee of professional journalists in collaboration with the program director.

These findings are used to determine graduation readiness.

5/1/2019

Specialized Journalism (MA)


Thesis Three-member thesis committee reviews the thesis. Chair (a full-time professor at Annenberg) works closely with student from August to March, developing drafts. Second and third committee members (one of whom must be an Annenberg professor and the other may be from a different school at USC) read in the spring and make suggestions. All three must sign off for the thesis to be approved.

Thesis projects belong to the university and are archived in the library. They are accessible to the public. Sometimes they are picked up by outside mainstream media and become published articles, sometimes they are developed by the author into books, and sometimes podcasts or live events.

Spring 2019

Specialized Journalism (The Arts) (MA)


Thesis Three-member thesis committee reviews the thesis. Chair (a full-time professor at Annenberg) works closely with student from August to March, developing drafts. Second and third committee members (one of whom must be an Annenberg professor and the other may be from a different school at USC) read in the spring and make

Thesis projects belong to the university and are archived in the library. They are accessible to the public. Sometimes they are picked up by outside mainstream media and become published articles, sometimes they are developed by the author into books, and sometimes podcasts or live events.

New program begins June 29, 2020

https://annenberg.usc.edu/journalism/journalism-ms/learning-objectives

https://annenberg.usc.edu/journalism/specialized-journalism-ma/admissions/learning-objectives

https://annenberg.usc.edu/journalism/specialized-journalism-arts-ma/admissions/learning-objectives


45

Category

(1) Have formal


developed?

Yes/No



materials)?








(6) Date of the

last program


suggestions. All three must sign off for the thesis to be approved.

The findings are used to further the field of arts and culture journalism.

Strategic Public Relations (MA)

Yes Program to be discontinued in 2019-2020 Academic Year.

Thesis or professional project To complete their degree, students have the option of preparing a thesis or taking a comprehensive exam. For the thesis option, students may select a traditional academic approach, a case study, a PR plan or a white paper. Regardless of the approach, a 3-person faculty committee reviews the thesis at all stages. The Chair (a full-time PR professor) works closely with the student throughout the process from August to the April submission date. Together, the chairperson and student agree on an approach, create an outline and research proposal; the student conducts significant primary research according to that agreement and incorporates it into the thesis document. Then, the chairperson reviews and edits the first draft. Once it has been approved, the second and third committee members (usually from within Annenberg but sometimes from a related field in another school) review the document and offer suggestions. All three must sign off for the thesis to be approved.

Thesis projects belong to the university and are archived in the library. They are accessible to the public. Sometimes, all or parts of the thesis work are picked up by outside media or industry publications and are quoted; other times they are utilized in podcasts or live events. In general, the findings are used to further the field of public relations. The comprehensive exam responses are used in two ways. First, the students must formally complete and launch their individual websites for immediate use in their job searches. The new Comp Exam “tab” that includes their answers to the prompts is a key differentiator for hiring managers. The students are actually demonstrating their abilities/skills as listed on their resumes. For example, one of the prompts is to design an infographic for a specific audience group. Once that is added to their personal websites, students can show potential employers the latest samples of their design, writing

2016


46

Category

(1) Have formal


developed?

Yes/No



materials)?








(6) Date of the

last program


The comprehensive exam has recently been revamped to include the development of a small portfolio of work (uploaded onto the students' existing personal websites) that demonstrates their knowledge of the six required courses in the MA SPR program. They are given a choice of three distinct organizations such as Tesla or Heal the Bay or Best Buy and respond to a series of prompts that reflect their coursework. Two faculty members review the submissions; students must score a 70 or above to pass the comprehensive exam. Students who fail to achieve a score of 70 have 48 hours to address the specific concerns raised by the reviewers.

and audience segmentation skills. Second, the responses they craft for each prompt are offered to faculty and other students as case studies and writing samples in future coursework. Eventually, we hope to offer portions of student work to industry trade and/or academic publications, but since this was our first full cycle of requiring the new Comp Exam, publishing was not a key goal.

Public Relations and Advertising (MA)


Thesis or professional project Since no students have taken or completed this degree yet, we have no data to supply. However, at this time, we plan to generally continue with the thesis and comprehensive exam processes as described above.

Again, since no students have taken or completed this degree yet, we have no findings to report.

New Program: Begins in fall 2020

https://annenberg.usc.edu/journalism/public-relations-ma/learning-objectives


47

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)



(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Department: School of Communication Program: Communication (B.A.)

Yes

For the Communication major, learning objectives are stated on the ASCJ website. A detailed description of the Communication major can be found on the ASCJ website. All core and methods courses state learning objectives on course syllabi, either explicitly or implicitly. PLO link

Some students who meet the academic qualifications may elect to participate in the Honors Program, in which they take an Honors Seminar or work with a professor to customize an appropriate honors-level seminar. All honor students complete COMM 497x Honors Thesis, which is evaluated by a faculty member.

Director, the faculty advisor evaluates the student’s Honors Thesis from COMM 497x.

To modify curriculum and course content as needed.

2014

Department: School of Communication Program: Communication Management (M.C.M.)

Yes The learning objectives are stated on the ASCJ website. All core and methods courses state learning objectives on course syllabi, either explicitly or implicitly. PLO link

In the penultimate or ultimate semester, students must take a capstone or practicum course. All capstone and practicum course options end with an extensive individual project, evaluated by a faculty member.

Each instructor of the capstone course reviews the project throughout the semester and evaluates the final product. The Director of the CMGT program reviews the evidence in aggregate.

The research project from the capstone course, considered with the rest of the student’s academic progress, determines whether or not they will receive the degree.

2019

Department: School of Communication Program: Global Communication (M.A.)8

Yes

Information about the first year of the program (LSE) can be found on the LSE website.

There is a capstone course at the end of the first year in London and a second capstone course at the end of the second year of the program at USC.

Students in their first year at LSE take cumulative exams that are double blind graded. Similarly, their research thesis is blind graded and the

A student must receive a passing grade on their first year exams and their research thesis in order to continue on to the second year of the program at USC.

2015

8 Two-year dual degree program jointly taught with the London School of Economics (LSE); students receive an M.S. from LSE and an M.A. from USC.

https://annenberg.usc.edu/communication/undergraduate-communication

http://bit.ly/1pHdRfa

http://bit.ly/237qsp4

https://www.lse.ac.uk/study-at-lse/Graduate/Degree-programmes-2020/MSc-Global-Media-and-Communications-LSE-and-USC

https://www.lse.ac.uk/study-at-lse/Graduate/Degree-programmes-2020/MSc-Global-Media-and-Communications-LSE-and-USC


48

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)



(4)



(5)


(6)



program

The learning outcomes for the second year of the program (USC) can be found on the ASCJ website The learning outcomes are encompassed in the dissertation and practicum requirements. PLO link

Students complete a research thesis during the summer after their first year at LSE, for which grades are awarded by LSE faculty. A passing grade is required to continue. Students continue to develop the research project during their second year at USC in COMM 598 and must earn a grade of B- or higher.

results are then approved by an external reviewer. These exams, as well as the initial dissertation, are graded by LSE faculty. The research thesis that students produce in their second year is assessed by their supervising USC professor and is also assessed by two additional USC professors during an oral presentation of their research.

The revised research thesis and oral presentation of their research, considered with the rest of the student’s academic progress at USC, determines whether or not they will receive their degree from USC.

Department: School of Communication Programs:

• Public Diplomacy (M.P.D.)9

• Public Diplomacy (Practitioner and Mid-Career Professional) (M.P.D.P.)

Yes Learning objectives are published on the ASCJ website. PLO link

PUBD 596: Practicum in Public Diplomacy Research

Research practicum paper is evaluated by faculty advisor.

The research practicum paper, considered with the rest of the student’s academic progress, determines whether or not they will receive the degree.

2014

Department: School of Communication Program: Digital Social Media (M.S.)

Yes

Learning objectives are published on the ASCJ website. PLO link

The completion of the degree requires the successful development and launch of a digital social media product in the capstone course DSM 596.

Capstone instructor(s) review the project throughout the semester and the final digital social media project is evaluated by both the course instructor(s) and the director of the DSM program.

The final project, considered with the rest of the student’s academic progress, determines whether or not they will receive the degree.

N/A The MS in DSM was relaunched in Fall 2018.

9 In partnership with USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, School of International Relations

http://bit.ly/1StkMEj

http://bit.ly/1StlXDP

http://bit.ly/1YUwoAx


49

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)



(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Department: School of Communication Program: Digital Social Media (M.S.)

Yes

Learning objectives are published on the ASCJ website. PLO link

The completion of the degree requires the successful development and launch of a digital social media product in the capstone course DSM 596.

The final digital social media project is evaluated by the director of the DSM program.

The final project, considered with the rest of the student’s academic progress, determines whether or not they will receive the degree.

N/A

Department: School of Communication Programs: Communication Data Science (M.S.)10

Yes Learning outcomes are published on the ASCJ website and on the Viterbi website. PLO link

Current practices:

• Course evaluations for core courses

• Review of graduation, internship and employment data

• End of year group interview with graduating students

In Process

• Co-directors (Viterbi & Annenberg) have been discussing implementation of a capstone/practicum course. Several options are currently under consideration, and one of the CMDS committee’s key tasks this year is to settle on a capstone option to include in the coming round of curriculum revisions.

The program co-directors review course evaluations and graduation, internship and employment data, and qualitative student feedback.

Results are used to ensure students are achieving program learning objectives, to make adjustments in curriculum as needed, and to provide additional resources/support to students as needed.

N/A

Department: School of Communication Program: Communication (M.A., Ph.D.)11

Yes Learning outcomes are published on the ASCJ website as well as in the Ph.D. Student Handbook. PLO link

• Screening at the end of the first year

• Qualifying Exam

• Dissertation Defense

• Student’s “mentor” and full faculty (screening);

• Guidance Committee (Comprehensive Exam);

• Dissertation Committee (Dissertation Defense)

Each review stage determines whether a student will be allowed to advance to the next stage; students are given formal feedback on how best to advance effectively at the conclusion of each stage.

2017

10 In partnership with USC Viterbi School of Engineering 11 Students are not accepted directly into this Master’s program, but the Master’s degree can be granted as a transitional degree in the process of completing requirements for the Ph.D. or for candidates who leave and do not complete the Ph.D. program.

http://bit.ly/1YUwoAx

http://bit.ly/1L6DT5Q

http://bit.ly/1YUxdt6

https://annenberg.usc.edu/sites/default/files/2019/09/23/2019-20-PhD-Student-Handbook.pdf

https://annenberg.usc.edu/sites/default/files/2019/09/23/2019-20-PhD-Student-Handbook.pdf

http://bit.ly/1XWr67D

USC Kaufman School of Dance

50

Category

(1) Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed?

Yes/No

(2) Where are these learning outcomes published (e.g.,

catalog, syllabi, other materials)?


evidence are used to determine that graduates

have achieved stated outcomes for the degree?

(e.g., capstone course, portfolio review,

licensure examination)?

(4) Who interprets the

evidence?



(6) Date of the

last program


Bachelor of Fine Arts in Dance

Yes PLO (1) Senior Project: The final two semesters focused on a multidisciplinary capstone project. Development and presentation of the senior project includes intellectual pursuits coupled with performance, choreography, media, music, entrepreneurial enterprise and furthering research.

(2) Jury: Perform jury at the end of each semester to assesses completion of Dance Technique syllabus material

(3) Student Performances/Productions: Demonstration of student skills in technique, choreography, media, and scholarship via productions, performances, and conferences/publications.

(4) Career Placement: Achievement of career goals as identified by the student. Development and execution of resume and professional materials.

(5) Mentoring: Ongoing 1 on 1 mentoring by assigned faculty members over the full course of the 4-year program to discuss goals, objectives, and achievements.

(1) Senior projects presented to faculty panel. 15-minute presentation reflecting on senior project presented to an open audience, including the faculty panel.

(2) Faculty panel assesses technical proficiency and artistic growth.

(3) Faculty panel assesses student growth in performances across various venues and forms.

(4) Career Services tracks student placement, entry into graduate school, and accomplishments after graduation.

(5) Vice Dean meets annually with individual students to assess artistic and scholarly progress and appropriately assigned mentors given students evolving interests.

(1) To evaluate and refine program requirements and continue to innovate as a dance school.

(2) To evaluate student interests and expand opportunities across commercial, concert, technological, and scholarly venues.

(3) To improve program offerings and identify potential new courses.

(4) To identify new repertoire suited to students needs, interests, skills, and educational progression.

(5) To address student needs and interests in developing intellectual pursuits and new areas of specialization within the dance field.

(6) Mentoring provides direct student feedback with regard to how to ongoing evolution of the program to meet their needs.

2015

https://kaufman.usc.edu/degrees/bfa/curriculum/learning-objectives/

USC Herman Ostrow School of Dentistry

51

Program

(1) Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed?

Yes/No


outcomes published? (e.g., catalog, syllabi,

other materials)



portfolio review, licensure examination?)




(6) Date of last

program review for this degree

program

Craniofacial Biology (PhD) Yes 1. School website 2. University Catalogue 3. Course Syllabi 4. PLO

1. Pass required courses 2. Maintain overall GPA above 3.0 3. Pass PhD qualifying exam 4. Write a thesis covering the selected

research project. 5. Successfully defend thesis in a

public setting 6. Quality of publications arising from

research topic/thesis

1. Student’s direct supervisor 2. PhD Guidance Committee 3. Thesis Committee 4. Program Director 5. Dean of the Dental School 6. Graduate School

Outcome data are used to measure the degree to which stated goals and objectives are achieved; Faculty use information to direct discussion, make decisions and take actions needed to enhance curriculum content, sequence and/or teaching effectiveness.

Internal review every year; 2011 University Academic Program Review; Next review Fall 2020

Dental Hygiene (BS) Yes 1. University Catalog 2. DH Student Manual 3. Course Syllabi 4. School website 5. School intranet 6. PLO

1. Pass all required courses 2. Pass licensure examinations

(National, State, Board) 3. Maintain overall GPA above 2.0

1. Program Director 2. Course Directors 3. Curriculum Committee 4. SPPEC4 The SPPEC process includes evaluating each student in academic and clinical courses, and for professional conduct. Progress is reviewed at intervals and remediation is offered for students who are below standards.

Outcome data are used to help improve the program by:

• Identifying weaknesses and solutions for improvement;

• Identifying strengths and using this information for recruitment.

CODA 2015 Self-study and site visit; Next review 2023; Internal reviews conducted at end of each trimester by Course Directors, Program Director; Student performance reviewed at the end of each trimester by SPPEC.

Dental Surgery (Doctor of Dental Surgery/DDS)

Yes 1. University Catalog 2. DDS Student Handbook 3. Course Syllabi 4. Clinic Syllabus 5. School website 6. School intranet 7. PLO

1. Successfully pass National Boards Part I and II and WREB licensing examination; effective 2022 will be one Integrated National Board

2. Interim and summative preclinical and clinical skills competency evaluations

3. Triple Jump Exams and “Problem Solving Exams”, measuring critical thinking and problem solving

1. Executive Associate Dean of Faculty, Academic & Student Affairs, Associate Deans Clinical Affairs

2. Curriculum Committee 3. SPPEC 4. Course Directors 5. Module Directors 6. Division Chairs The process includes evaluating each student performance in


CODA 2015 Self-study and site visit; Curriculum Committee review on 3 year cycle; Next review 2023; Internal reviews of learning modules conducted at end of each trimester by Module

https://dentistry.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Dental-Academic-Program-Objectives-March-2020.pdf




52

Program

(1) Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed?

Yes/No



other materials)







(6) Date of last


program

4. COMBOT exams, measuring application of biomedical sciences to clinical sciences

5. Maintain overall GPA above 2.0

academic and clinical courses, and for professional conduct. Progress is reviewed at intervals and remediation is offered for students who are below standards.

Directors; Internal reviews conducted at end of each trimester by Course Directors and Program Director; Student performance reviewed at the end of each trimester by SPPEC.

Geriatric Dentistry MS (on-line)

Yes 1. University Catalog 2. Course Syllabi 3. School Intranet 4. School Website 5. PLO

1. Pass required courses 2. Maintain overall GPA above 3.0 3. Attend on-site Knowledge

Assessment Courses 4. Participate in weekly Virtual Case

Conferences 5. Complete Capstone Research

Project 6. Complete Case Presentation

Portfolio

1. Executive Associate Dean of Academic, Faculty & Student Affairs

2. Curriculum Committee 3. Program Director 4. Course Directors 5. Division Chairs


2015 University Academic Program Review of on-line programs; Student performance reviewed at the end of each trimester by SPPEC; Internal reviews conducted at end of each trimester by Course Directors and Program Director.

Orofacial Pain and Oral Medicine MS (on-line)



Assessment courses 4. Participate in weekly Virtual Case

Conferences 5. Complete Capstone Research

project



Outcome data are used to measure the degree to which stated goals and objectives are achieved; Faculty use information to direct discussion, make decisions and take actions needed to enhance curriculum content,

2015 University Academic Program Review of on-line programs; Student performance reviewed at the end of each




53

Program

(1) Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed?

Yes/No



other materials)







(6) Date of last


program

6. Complete Case Presentation Portfolio

sequence and/or teaching effectiveness.

trimester by SPPEC; Internal reviews conducted at end of each trimester by Course Directors and Program Director.

Community Oral Health MS (on-line)



Assessment courses 4. Participate in weekly Virtual

Conferences 5. Complete Practicum project 6. Complete Capstone project




Student performance reviewed at the end of each trimester by SPPEC; Internal reviews conducted at end of each trimester by Course Directors and Program Director.

Biomedical Implants and Tissue Engineering (BITE) MS

Yes 1. University Catalog 2. Course Syllabi 3. School Website 4. School Intranet 5. PLO

1. Pass required courses 2. Maintain overall GPA above 3.0 3. Complete Master’s Thesis




Student performance reviewed at the end of each trimester by SPPEC; Internal reviews conducted at end of each trimester by Course Directors and Program Director.

Biomaterials and Digital Dentistry MS

Yes 1. University Catalog 2. Course Syllabi 3. School Website

1. Pass required courses 2. Maintain overall GPA above 3.0 3. Complete Master’s Thesis


Outcome data are used to measure the degree to which stated goals and objectives

Student performance reviewed at the




54

Program

(1) Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed?

Yes/No



other materials)







(6) Date of last


program

4. School Intranet 5. PLO


are achieved; Faculty use information to direct discussion, make decisions and take actions needed to enhance curriculum content, sequence and/or teaching effectiveness.

end of each trimester by SPPEC; Internal reviews conducted at end of each trimester by Course Directors and Program Director.


USC Independent Health Professions at the Ostrow School of Dentistry

55

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


(Please specify)

(3)

Other than GPA, what data/evidence is used to determine that graduates have achieved stated outcomes for the degree? (e.g., capstone course,

portfolio review, licensure examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)


program

Department: Division of Biokinesiology and Physical Therapy Program: Biokinesiology (M.S.)

Yes 1. MS Student Handbook 2. Biokinesiology Website 3. PLO

1. Completion of capstone research project

1. Biokinesiology Faculty 2. Annual review of students

Findings are used to revise the program curriculum as well as the program’s Policies & Procedures manual. This is done on a biannual basis (January & July).

2012 University Academic Program Review

Department: Division of Biokinesiology and Physical Therapy Program: Biokinesiology (Ph.D.)

Yes 1. PhD Student Handbook 2. Biokinesiology Website 3. PLO

1. PhD Screening Examination 2. PhD Qualifying Examination 3. Defense of PhD dissertation

1. PhD Guidance Committee 2. PhD Dissertation Committee 3. Biokinesiology Faculty 4. Annual review of students


2012 University Academic Program Review

Department: Division of Biokinesiology and Physical Therapy Program: Physical Therapy (D.P.T.)

Yes 1. DPT Student Handbook 2. Physical Therapy

Website 3. PLO

1. Pass National Physical Therapy Examination for licensure

2. Pass all clinical education courses

1. Physical Therapy Faculty 2. Bi-monthly faculty meetings 3. Semester committee meetings 4. DPT Curriculum Committee


2018 Re-accreditation by Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education

Department: Chan Division of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy Program: Occupational Therapy (B.S.)

Yes 1. University Catalog 2. Chan Division Website 3. Student Handbook 4. Course syllabi 5. PLO

1. Successfully complete GRE and MA program application.

2. Meet admissions requirements to continue into MA program in occupational therapy (required for certification/licensure).

3. Multiple Documentation Practica throughout Practice Immersion Courses (OT 501 Practice Immersion: Adult Physical Rehabilitation, OT 502 Practice Immersion: Mental Health, OT 503 Practice Immersion: Pediatrics)

1. Director of Admissions; student advisement and applicant review

2. Director of Professional Master’s Program

3. OT 501, OT 502 and OT 503 Faculty (Documentation Practica)

4. OT 518 Faculty (Poster)

Faculty use information to direct discussion, make decisions and take actions needed to enhance curriculum content, sequence and/or teaching effectiveness. Findings are used to revise the program curriculum and Division Handbook.

Internal review every year

https://pt.usc.edu/files/2020/07/Program-Learning-Objectives-3.pdf



https://chan.usc.edu/images/uploads/OSOT_Student_Learning_Outcomes_-_2016.pdf


56

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


(Please specify)

(3)

Other than GPA, what data/evidence is used to determine that graduates have achieved stated outcomes for the degree? (e.g., capstone course,

portfolio review, licensure examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)


program

4. Poster Presentation/Critically Appraised Topic

Department: Chan Division of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy Program: Occupational Therapy (M.A.)

Yes 1. University Catalog 2. Chan Division Website 5. Student Handbook 4. Course syllabi 5. PLO

1. Public Policy Forum 2. Leadership Capstone 3. Program Proposal and Poster

Presentation/Community Program 4. Successful completion of Level II

fieldwork 5. Comprehensive Exam

1. OT 540 Faculty (Forum) 2. OT 540 Faculty (Externship) 3. OT 537 Faculty (Poster) 4. Academic Fieldwork

Coordinators 5. Director of Professional

Master’s Program


Internal review every year; ACOTE5 re-accreditation self-study and on-site review 2014; ACOTE interim report successfully submitted and approved December, 2018

Department: Chan Division of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy Program: Occupational Therapy (O.T.D.)

Yes 1. University Catalogue 2. Chan Division Website 3. Course Syllabi 4. PLO

1. Evidence-Based Review 2. Final OTD Portfolio of Course Plan,

Evidence and Residency 3. Leadership Presentation

1. OT 620 Course Instructor and Faculty Mentor

2. Director of OTD Program and Faculty Mentors

3. All Division faculty invited to attend and provide feedback

4. All OTD faculty via discussions at monthly OTD meetings


Internal review every year; 2014 University Academic Program Review

Department: Chan Division of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy Program: Occupational Science (Ph.D.)

Yes 1. University Catalogue 2. Chan Division Website 3. Student Handbook 4. Course Syllabi 5. PLO

1. PhD Screening Examination 2. PhD Annual Student Review 3. PhD Qualifying Examination 4. PhD Dissertation Proposal 5. Defense of PhD Dissertation

1. Director of PhD Program and PhD Faculty

2. PhD Faculty Committee 3. PhD Dissertation Committee

PhD program faculty meet monthly to appraise the program and student learning outcome data. Program, curriculum, and handbook revisions are made, based on these outcomes data.

Internal review ongoing; 2014 University Academic Program Review

1 Western Regional Examining Board examining Board (WREB); develops and administers competency assessments for State agencies that license dental professionals, for California and 20 other states 2 Computer-based Objective Tests; timed exams with multiple choice questions referencing digital images for identification of basic and clinical science phenomena, instrumentation, etc. 3 Commission on Dental Accreditation (CODA)





57

4 Student Professional Performance Evaluation Committee (SPPEC) 5 Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education (CAPTE) 6 Accreditation Council for Occupational Therapy Education (ACOTE)

USC School of Dramatic Arts

58

Category

(1) Have

formal learning

outcomes been

developed?

Yes/No









evidence?



(6) Date of the

last program review for this degree program.

THEATRE (BA)

Yes

School Of Dramatic Arts Website School Of Dramatic Arts Faculty Guidelines Document PLO

SDA fourth year (capstone) productions and/or final projects eg acting assignments, critical papers, internships , Independent Student Productions, professional seminars, mentorships and SDA Career Center submissions for professional work.

Faculty, through discussion and evaluation

To consolidate effective instructional/pedagogical pathways; to review and assess current practice and standards and improve upon curriculum where necessary

2019 Program review focused in depth on the core of the BA program which is also relevant to all BA emphasis programs.

VISUAL AND PERFORMING ARTS STUDIES (BA)

Yes

School of dramatic arts website School of dramatic arts faculty guidelines document PLO

Critical papers, examinations, and mentoring assessments



Spring 2017 Curricular Review

THEATRE (ACTING) BFA Yes


SDA capstone (fourth year) productions, Senior Industry Showcase, professional seminars, SDA Career Center submissions for professional work.



2019 Program review focused in depth on the core of the BFA program which is relevant to all BFA programs across disciplines.

THEATRE (MUSICAL THEATRE) BFA

Yes


SDA capstone (fourth year) productions, Senior Industry Showcase, professional seminars, SDA Career Center submissions for professional work.



N/A Program established Fall 2019.

https://dramaticarts.usc.edu/programs/undergraduate/learning-objectives/





59

Category

(1) Have

formal learning

outcomes been

developed?

Yes/No









evidence?



(6) Date of the


THEATRE (DESIGN) BFA Yes


Productions, Portfolio review, mentoring assessments, internal professional showcase.

Faculty, through discussion and evaluation; external evaluators at Design Showcase West

To nominate candidates for Design Showcase West. To consolidate effective instructional/pedagogical pathways; to review and assess current practice and standards and improve upon curriculum where necessary

2019

THEATRE (STAGE MNGMT) BFA

Yes


Productions, Portfolio review, mentoring assessments

Faculty, through discussion and evaluation; external evaluators (mentors)


2019

THEATRE (TECHNICAL DIRECTION) BFA

Yes


Productions, Portfolio review, mentoring assessments



2019

THEATRE (SOUND DESIGN) BFA

Yes


Productions, Portfolio review, mentoring assessments, internal professional showcase.



2019

THEATRE (ACTING) MFA

Yes


Two capstone courses: the three play repertory and the Professional Industry Showcase; professional seminars, student conferences with core faculty each semester,

Faculty, through discussion and evaluation; external evaluators (Casting Directors, Agents, Directors)

To consolidate effective instructional/pedagogical pathways; to review and assess current practice and standards and improve upon curriculum where

2015





https://dramaticarts.usc.edu/programs/graduate/acting/learning-objectives/


60

Category

(1) Have

formal learning

outcomes been

developed?

Yes/No









evidence?



(6) Date of the


and SDA Career Center submissions for professional work.

necessary

THEATRE (DRAMATIC WRITING) MFA

Yes


New Works Festival III (Capstone Course) featuring professional responders

Faculty, through discussion and evaluation; external evaluators (Professional responders)


2015

https://dramaticarts.usc.edu/programs/graduate/dramatic-writing/learning-objectives/

USC Rossier School of Education

61

Category (1) Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed?

Yes/No



materials)?




(e.g., capstone course, portfolio review, licensure

examination)?



(5) How are the findings used?

(6) Date of the last program


Masters of Arts in Teaching (MAT) Single Subject Teaching Multiple Subject Teaching Education Specialist

Yes Published on the Rossier website and on the online program’s platform. They get repeated with each course, and we use a dashboard type of indicator to show how each course connects to the program’s learning objectives. PLO link

Throughout the program, students assemble demonstrations of their ability to facilitate learning evidenced by four program key assessments. These assessments capture in writing and/or on video student learning across the program in alignment with program objectives. Each student completes an assessment portfolio as part of the national edTPA process. That assessment includes the videos and materials described above, and is rated by independent, calibrated reviewers through Pearson.

Faculty review the course-based documentation with each course. All key assessments are evaluated using program designed rubrics by the instructor where the key assessment is submitted. Pearson, Inc. rates the student’s edTPA portfolio against a standard rubric. Passage of the edTPA by Candidates is required for recommendation for a California teaching credential.

The reviews of student work and edTPA results are used to make modifications to the program – for a specific course and/or the sequence of courses.

This program was part of a joint review by both state (CTC) and national (NCATE) accreditation organizations in 2013. It was found to meet all standards in May 2014.

Masters of Arts in Teaching/Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (M.A.T. TESOL)

Yes Published on the Rossier website (broken link) and in orientation materials, and at course-level. Also appear on the course LMS for the online version of the program. PLO link

Faculty informally and formally assess students’ in-class participation and performance in class discussions, activities, and group projects The program has five Key Assessments built into the curriculum which are aligned with CAEP standards and which formally assess students on core competencies required for progress in and completion of the program Students are assessed informally and formally on

Course Leads evaluate student performance and outcome data at the course level Program Governance Committee reviews and evaluates student performance and outcome data at the program level Faculty Chair of program along with Governance Committee interprets evidence of outcomes over time to guide program evaluation and redesign process

Course Leads use findings to adjust course level content and activities to increase achievement of targeted outcomes Program Governance committee uses findings to increase coherence of course goals and activities across the program in order to ensure strong students outcomes Faculty Chair and Governance Committee use findings to better articulate program goals, objectives, and results to prospective students and

APR 2017

https://rossier.usc.edu/programs/masters/mat/

https://rossier.usc.edu/programs/masters/mat/

https://rossier.usc.edu/files/2020/03/MAT-PLO.pdf

https://rossier.usc.edu/programs/masters/mat-tesol/

https://rossier.usc.edu/programs/masters/mat-tesol/

https://rossier.usc.edu/files/2020/03/MAT-TESOL-PLO.pdf


62


learning outcomes

been developed?

Yes/No



materials)?





examination)?






their engagement and performance during the approximately 100 hours of required clinical fieldwork that students complete in their classroom placements

World Masters in Language Teaching

Yes Published on the Rossier website and in orientation materials, and at course-level. Also appear on the course LMS for the online version of the program. PLO link

Faculty informally and formally assess students’ in-class participation and performance in class discussions, activities, and group projects The program has five Key Assessments built into the curriculum which are aligned with CAEP standards and which formally assess students on core competencies required for progress in and completion of the program Students are assessed informally and formally on their engagement and performance during the approximately 100 hours of required clinical fieldwork that students complete in their classroom placements

Course Leads evaluate student performance and outcome data at the course level Program Governance Committee reviews and evaluates student performance and outcome data at the program level Faculty Chair of program along with Governance Committee interprets evidence of outcomes over time to guide program evaluation and redesign process

Course Leads use findings to adjust course level content and activities to increase achievement of targeted outcomes Program Governance committee uses findings to increase coherence of course goals and activities across the program in order to ensure strong students outcomes Faculty Chair and Governance Committee use findings to better articulate program goals, objectives, and results to prospective students and outside stakeholders.

New Program Effective 2017

Education Counseling (M.E.)

Yes Published on the Rossier website and in orientation materials, and at course-level PLO link

In the 2nd year, all students complete 210 hours of fieldwork at practicum sites such as the community college, 4-year university and nonprofit such as community

Students work products such as formal papers, class and year- end symposium presentations, and field work reflections and poster presentations are assessed by

Direct feedback is given to the students and seminar instructor, and fieldwork instructors. The seminar instructor is the curriculum coordinator for the program

New program was approved by USC UCOC and launched in Fall 2010.

https://rossier.usc.edu/programs/masters/world-masters-in-language-teaching/

https://rossier.usc.edu/programs/masters/world-masters-in-language-teaching/

https://rossier.usc.edu/files/2020/03/WMLT-PLO.pdf

https://rossier.usc.edu/programs/masters/educational-counseling/

https://rossier.usc.edu/programs/masters/educational-counseling/

https://rossier.usc.edu/files/2020/03/EC-PLO.pdf


63


learning outcomes

been developed?

Yes/No



materials)?





examination)?






education and learning-related settings. Students complete a year-long capstone project that combines their coursework and their field work experiences in a live case study assessment in educational counseling, academic advising, or student services department. This evaluation concludes with a formal presentation presented to the full EC cohort and invited guests who also evaluate the capstone project. Students have the option of completing a thesis rather than the capstone project. The thesis is evaluated by a committee chaired by an RSOE faculty member.

faculty and practitioners in the field of student affairs or student services with relevant experience.

so the level of evidence about learning outcomes shown in the capstone projects provides an annual benchmark as evidence of learning in each cohort. This evidence is used for continued curriculum updated and improvement to support students in achieving the stated learning outcomes and being ready for employment.

Postsecondary Administration and Student Affairs (M.E.)


PASA students enroll in the EDUC 616 Higher Education Capstone course in their last term and complete a capstone project that integrates their coursework, internships, and other experiences into a final product. Each student’s project is evaluated by faculty and may be presented during a formal presentation (i.e., academic symposium).

Student work is evaluated by faculty and practitioners in the field of student affairs or student services with relevant experience. Assessments are conducted by faculty periodically throughout each course.

Direct feedback is given to the students by the capstone instructor. The capstone instructor is the curriculum coordinator for the program, so the level of work/evidence shown in the capstone projects provides an annual benchmark as evidence of learning in each cohort. This evidence is used for

New program was approved by USC UCOC and launched in Fall 2019

https://rossier.usc.edu/programs/masters/pasa/

https://rossier.usc.edu/programs/masters/pasa/

https://rossier.usc.edu/files/2020/03/PASA-PLO.pdf


64


learning outcomes

been developed?

Yes/No



materials)?





examination)?






School Counseling (M.E.)


A Comprehensive Assessment Plan (CAP) is used to assess graduate outcomes. This includes assessing: Performance on key assignments in each course Performance on the culminating project of the final Portfolio course. Field Experience evaluation by faculty in Practicum (EDCO 5i74) and Fieldwork 1&2 (EDCO 575) regarding case conceptualization, knowledge and skill application, and the supervision process. Field Experience evaluation by Site Supervisor regarding completion of 700 hours at an approved site; performance of academic, socioemotional, and college/career counseling; and performance in counseling K-12 students of diverse backgrounds. This evaluation is required for the CCTC PPS-SC Credential.

Using the Comprehensive Assessment Plan (CAP), outcomes are reviewed during: program meetings program retreats program advisory board meetings program reviews The stakeholders interpreting this evidence include teaching faculty, the MSC Curriculum Coordinator, field experience faculty, field experience Site Supervisors, and Program Advisor Board Members.

The Comprehensive Assessment Plan (CAP) includes four components: Pre-Program Assessment Program Assessment Program Completion Assessment Program Evaluation The aforementioned findings are used with other CAP data (application/enrollment and exit/alumni/employer surveys) to continue improving the curriculum/field experience at all stages of the program.

The program was reinstated Summer 2018. It is currently being re-written to align with new state accreditation standards (and new CCTC standards for the PPS-SC). Aiming for curriculum update effective Fall 2021.

Marriage and Family Therapy (M.M.F.T.)

Yes Published on the Rossier website and in orientation materials, and at course-level The learning objectives are explicitly stated in each course syllabus. They are stated in the evaluations of our

Grades and faculty evaluations: All students are evaluated on their performance in each class quantitatively and qualitatively. To determine dispositional suitability for the field, which is an ethical requirement of MFT training

Program curriculum coordinators interpret the evidence, in consultation with other faculty members. Annual meetings are held to conduct student evaluations and notifications are sent out via email, unless there is a flag in which case students are

Results are used to revise the program each year to better meet the needs of students. Students’ progress is monitored in the program.

Curriculum changes are pending approval for Fall 2020 (capstone combined from 2 1- unit courses into 1 2-unit course).

https://rossieronline.usc.edu/masters/school-counseling-online/course-descriptions/

https://rossieronline.usc.edu/masters/school-counseling-online/course-descriptions/

https://rossier.usc.edu/files/2020/03/SC-PLO.pdf

https://rossier.usc.edu/programs/masters/mft/

https://rossier.usc.edu/programs/masters/mft/


65


learning outcomes

been developed?

Yes/No



materials)?





examination)?






students' work during their fieldwork in the program. PLO link

programs, students are evaluated in the first and second terms of the program. Each faculty member who teaches in these terms is asked to evaluate each student along a list of criteria that are aligned with professional standards for ethical practice for MFTs. Students who do not meet satisfactory threshold are identified and a behavioral contract is developed to help the student remediate in areas of concern. This usually involves meeting on a regular basis with one of the faculty members who monitors and supports the student in the professional development process. Students who are deemed to be unsuitable for practice are either asked to leave the program at this juncture or offered a different degree option of Masters in Family Studies, which allows

asked to come in for a remediation meeting. Fieldwork evaluations are collected and reviewed by fieldwork instructors and are a part of the course grade. Licensing exam pass rates are currently high and are used to ensure the program is teaching the state mandated learning objectives. Program satisfaction data is gathered and shared with both faculty and students.

Master of Education in Learning Design and Technology (M. E.)

Yes Published on the Rossier website and in orientation materials, and at course-level materials. Each course and unit has clearly defined outcomes that are presented in both the syllabus and the Learning Management System.

At the course level, each course culminates in an application-focused project. At the program level, all students complete a two-semester Master’s Studio (A and B). The final project is a comprehensive capstone project that is designed to

At the course level, a faculty member provides feedback and evaluates a student’s performance against an established rubric that reflects the intended outcomes. At the program level, the Master’s Studio is taught by a

Students receive direct feedback from faculty and others on their committee. As part of continuous program improvement, student performance in their ability to meet the intended learning outcomes is used to revise courses as well as the overall

Initial WASC and university approval was acquired for the August 2014 launch. (Fast Track - Sub Change).

https://rossier.usc.edu/files/2020/03/MFT-PLO.pdf

https://rossier.usc.edu/programs/masters/learning-design-and-technology/

https://rossier.usc.edu/programs/masters/learning-design-and-technology/


66


learning outcomes

been developed?

Yes/No



materials)?





examination)?






PLO link

demonstrate an application the knowledge and skills acquired throughout the program.

faculty member who acts as a student’s capstone chair throughout the two semesters. The final capstone product is reviewed and evaluated by an informal three-person committee consisting of the chair, a 2nd faculty reviewer as well as a web design professional. Each member provides detailed feedback and the chair determines the final grade for the capstone course.

curriculum. For example, program’s curriculum coordinator in conjunction with the course instructors may make changes in the sequence of courses to better support students in meeting program’s learning outcomes.

Master of Education in Enrollment Management and Policy

Yes Published on the Rossier website and in orientation materials, and at course-level materials. Each course and unit have clearly defined outcomes that are presented in both the syllabus and the Learning Management System. PLO link

At the end of the program, students are enrolled in EDUC 699 Capstone Seminar, in which students incorporate what they have learned during the EMP courses into a final culminating project (final enrollment plan). Students present their plans to the EMP core faculty at the end of their program. The EMP Capstone course is the evaluative experience upon which the program is based. It is team-taught by a calibrated group of faculty who are the designers and founders of the program. Each faculty member is the primary Capstone advisor of one-half the class and the secondary

EMP curriculum coordinator and core EMP faculty evaluate the final projects of each student. The final project encapsulates the following elements: admissions policy and practice, diversity, retention, financial aid, marketing, legal issues, and leadership. Each project is evaluated on depth of thought, connection to course materials, completeness and format.

The EMP faculty and curriculum coordinator review evaluations of final projects to help them determine what enhancements need to be made to the overall curriculum. The first graduating cohort will be completing the program in May 2020.

New program effective Fall 2018

https://rossier.usc.edu/files/2020/03/LDT-PLO.pdf

https://rossier.usc.edu/programs/masters/emp/

https://rossier.usc.edu/programs/masters/emp/

https://rossier.usc.edu/files/2020/03/EMP-PLO.pdf


67


learning outcomes

been developed?

Yes/No



materials)?





examination)?






advisor for the other half. The team teaching approach provides dual advising and oversight of all program expectations.To corroborate candidate knowledge and progress, the work of each previous course is vital to successful completion of the Capstone units and assignment expectations; prior class assignments are the building blocks of the Capstone course project. Through faculty collaboration, the quality and projected effectiveness of the final project are evaluated based upon criteria of 1) comprehensiveness, 2) integration, and 3) coherence.

Ed.D. in Educational Leadership


In addition to course-based evaluations, students complete a Preliminary Review (students respond to a prompt that is a reflection of the work they did in their first four courses), a dissertation proposal defense and a dissertation defense. Information about each appears in the Catalogue and on the program’s website.

The Preliminary Review is reviewed by faculty from the concentration of the chosen topic. All students take the Preliminary Review. The capstone experience is written and orally defended. It is reviewed by at least a three- person committee. At least one member of the committee must be a full-time Rossier faculty member. The third member may be from outside USC, holding an

Students pass or fail the Preliminary Review and are notified in writing. Suggestions for improvements of the capstone project and provided both in writing and verbally to the student during the defense and qualifying exam. Students are notified in writing about the outcome (pass/fail) of both the qualifying exam and dissertation defenses.

UCAR APR Doctoral Program Review 2016

https://rossier.usc.edu/programs/doctoral/ed-leadership/

https://rossier.usc.edu/programs/doctoral/ed-leadership/

https://rossier.usc.edu/files/2020/03/EDL-PLO.pdf


68


learning outcomes

been developed?

Yes/No



materials)?





examination)?






earned doctorate and with practical experience related to the topic. Prior to the dissertation defense, the student must appear before this committee and complete the oral Qualifying Examination. In addition to posing questions that

Faculty use the results of these measures to revise elements of the Ed.D. program as needed. For example, when students generally appeared to be having trouble with research methods, faculty revised both the content and sequence of courses

Ed.D. in Organizational Change and Leadership

Yes Published on the Rossier website and in orientation materials, and at course-level PLO Link

Completed a three-year Dean’s Charge review process looking at performance outcomes. A Dissertation in Practice that focuses on problems of practices in their organization or field. Faculty advisors are assigned at the end of the first year. In addition to course-based evaluations (mid- and end-of-semester), students complete a Preliminary Review (a portfolio of graded papers from the first four courses and faculty feedback), a qualifying examination/dissertation proposal defense, and a dissertation defense.

Evidence for the Dean’s Charge reviews was interpreted by the OCL Governance Committee, as well as by course coordinators and program faculty. Learning evaluations are reviewed by the EdD Program Office, including the Director of the program, faculty course coordinators, and individual section faculty. The Preliminary Review portfolio is reviewed by a three-person faculty committee. Not all student portfolios are reviewed. Students who have received a grade of B or below in in any course, whose GPA has dropped below 3.5, or were referred by individual faculty are reviewed.

Dean’s Charge reviews and learning evaluation findings are utilized by the course coordinators to make changes to the course or to support the development of individual instructors. At the program level, findings are used to adjust overall course sequence, program content, and student support. Students pass or fail the Preliminary and feedback is given to students when concerns are noted and students are passed. Students are notified in writing. Suggestions for improvements of the dissertation are provided verbally (and also frequently in writing) to the student during the defense and qualifying exam. Students are notified orally and in writing about the outcome

The program was originally approved in fall 2014 for a January 2015 launch. UCAR APR Doctoral Program Review 2016 Curriculum revisions reviewed and approved by USC in 2018.

https://rossieronline.usc.edu/doctorate/edd-online/courses/

https://rossieronline.usc.edu/doctorate/edd-online/courses/

https://rossier.usc.edu/files/2020/03/OCL-PLO.pdf


69


learning outcomes

been developed?

Yes/No



materials)?





examination)?






Dissertation chairs and a faculty committee (at least one additional Rossier faculty member and an additional faculty member or outside committee member with a terminal degree in a related field) evaluate qualifying exams/proposals and dissertations.

(pass/fail) of both the qualifying exam and dissertation defenses.

Global Executive EdD


The cornerstone of the curriculum is the Dissertation of Practice, where students produce original works of scholarship, focused on a real-world problem facing educational institutions. The dissertation leverages the Rossier School’s thematic dissertation group’ model in which students each write on related topics, and using similar methodological approaches work in a collaborative setting under the supervision of a faculty mentor. This approach replaces the traditional, isolating dissertation process with a collaborative format more relevant to educational leadership practices. Work on the dissertation begins just a few months into the program, and the dissertation is deeply integrated into the coursework throughout the

Cohort Group Faculty Mentors interpret all formative evidence. The entire program has approx. 20 students and the program faculty work as a whole to interpret summative Dissertation of Practice evidence.

Formative data is used to support students. All data is used for program evaluation and improvement.

UCAR APR Doctoral Program Review 2016

https://rossier.usc.edu/programs/doctoral/global-executive/

https://rossier.usc.edu/programs/doctoral/global-executive/

https://rossier.usc.edu/files/2020/03/GEDD-PLO.pdf


70


learning outcomes

been developed?

Yes/No



materials)?





examination)?






program. Key assignments in the courses are also fundamental components of the dissertation, which are then aggregated into the dissertation— thereby closely connecting the research process and the content of the coursework.

Ph.D. In Urban Education Policy

Yes Published on the Rossier website and in orientation materials, and at course-level. Additionally, faculty must submit the learning outcomes for teaching assistants. PLO link

In addition to the learning assessments developed for required curricula, the program has degree requirements and benchmark assessments to measure student learning: Doctoral screening (end of first year). Criteria appear in the Catalogue and are distributed to and discussed with students Teaching Assistant (typically in the second or third year). Students TA for a class they hope to one day teach. They receive a university evaluation from their students at the end of the semester. Qualifying Examination (end of formal coursework which includes a research and teaching portfolio; Defense of the dissertation (end of the program: Curriculum and Bench Marks

Procedures are in place to ensure that feedback on student progress at every stage in the program is clear and constructive. Evaluation criteria are presented to the students well in advance of each review process. Throughout the student’s tenure, data are collected through anonymous surveys, focus groups and individual meetings to make every attempt to eliminate the ritualistic aspects of the review process and substitute supportive information based on our goals for the program. Doctoral Screening: PhD program chair, student’s faculty advisor, and the instructors of the four core courses. After passing the Doctoral Screening process and before the start of the final semester of the required coursework,

The PhD Governance committee has incorporated learning outcomes for improvement of the curriculum, pedagogy and educational experience. For example, from the doctoral screenings, it was learned that students felt it was problematic to wait for the second year to begin research methods courses. With this input, course sequencing was changed and research methods courses are now offered in the first year.

Formal learning outcomes were embedded in the original proposal for the program, established in November, 2003. The program was subsequently reviewed during the January 2007 and 2016 APR. The syllabi, which include learning measures for our core courses, have undergone review in the past two years and our curriculum was revised in 2017 to better align with Rossier’s mission.

https://rossier.usc.edu/programs/doctoral/urban-ed-policy/

https://rossier.usc.edu/programs/doctoral/urban-ed-policy/

https://rossier.usc.edu/files/2020/03/PHD-PLO.pdf

https://rossier.usc.edu/files/2016/05/13-SLO-PhD.pdf


71


learning outcomes

been developed?

Yes/No



materials)?





examination)?






the student and faculty advisor will establish the 5-member Guidance Committee, a minimum of three tenured and tenure-track faculty must be from the Rossier School. Information about the committee structure, procedure and measures are at the Curriculum and Benchmarks page. After the student has successfully passed the qualifying examination, the student selects a 3-person dissertation committee. The dissertation committee is also responsible for the evaluation of the defense of the dissertation.

http://rossier.usc.edu/programs/doctoral/urban-ed-policy/curriculum/

http://rossier.usc.edu/programs/doctoral/urban-ed-policy/curriculum/

USC Viterbi School of Engineering

72

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)

Other than GPA, what data/evidence is used to

determine that graduates have achieved stated outcomes for the

degree? (e.g., capstone course, portfolio review, licensure

examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Department: Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering Program: Aerospace Engineering (B.S.)

Yes ABET Program Educational Objectives and Student Outcomes are published on the Department website. ABET Student Outcomes are published on the Viterbi School of Engineering website accreditation page. PLO link

Capstone courses have rubrics, Writing 340 uses a portfolio review, and physics courses use concept inventories. The Department uses scores on some assignments in particular courses to assess attainment of outcomes.

The Department Curriculum Committee (DCC) accumulates and interprets the evidence. Individual faculty submit course journals for all undergraduate courses every semester. The DCC reviews these journals annually to determine where problems have developed and recommend approaches for resolving any identified problems.

Based on the assessment data, the Department Curriculum Committee makes recommendations to the Department as a whole for ways individual courses and the curriculum as a whole could be improved. The faculty then vote on the recommendations and those that are approved are used as the basis for course and program revision proposals that are submitted through the University’s curriculum management system.

Fall 2015 ABET12 review, 6-year accreditation renewal Fall 2016 – Summer 2022

Department: Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering Program: Aerospace Engineering (M.S.)

Yes Viterbi School of Engineering website Program Learning Objectives page PLO link

Engineering graduate programs tend to be disciplinary with applicants having recently received similar or closely related undergraduate degrees so entering graduate students are typically ready to immediately pursue advanced work. The department ensures that all instructors are highly qualified full-time or part-time faculty members who have advanced degrees and/or extensive experience in the field.

Faculty are responsible for taking feedback from students and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. UCAR empanels an internal University review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external

Individual faculty may propose curriculum adjustments to the faculty as a whole at any time. The entire faculty then vote on the recommendations and those that are approved are used as the basis for course and program revision proposals that are submitted through the University’s curriculum management system. The UCAR program review reports are a source of guidance to the department including guidance relating to curricula.

UCAR13 process, Fall 2017; UCAR MS14 process Fall 2020

12ABET = Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc. 13UCAR = USC University Committee on Academic Review, full department review 14UCAR MS = USC University Committee on Academic Review, master’s program review

https://ame.usc.edu/academics/


https://viterbischool.usc.edu/accreditation/


https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-BS-AE.pdf

https://viterbischool.usc.edu/accreditation/wasc/


https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-AE.pdf


73

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years.

assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs. The Department faculty evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies and collectively decide upon an appropriate course of action to rectify any program deficiencies that have been identified.

Department: Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering Program: Aerospace Engineering (Engineer)


Engineering graduate programs tend to be disciplinary with applicants having recently received similar or closely related undergraduate degrees so entering graduate students are typically ready to immediately pursue advanced work. The department ensures that all

Faculty are responsible for taking feedback from students and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. UCAR empanels an internal University review committee

Individual faculty may propose curriculum adjustments to the faculty as a whole at any time. The entire faculty then vote on the recommendations and those that are approved are used as the basis for course and program revision proposals that are submitted through the University’s curriculum management system.

UCAR process Fall 2017



https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-Engr-AE.pdf


74

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

instructors are highly qualified full-time or part-time faculty members who have advanced degrees and/or extensive experience in the field. The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years.

that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs. The Department faculty evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies and collectively decide upon an appropriate course of action to rectify any program deficiencies that have been identified.

The UCAR program review reports are a source of guidance to the department including guidance relating to curricula.

Department: Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering

Yes Viterbi School of Engineering website Program Learning Objectives page

Engineering graduate programs tend to be disciplinary with applicants having recently received similar or closely related

Faculty are responsible for taking feedback from students and surveilling the field as needed to better

Individual faculty may propose curriculum adjustments to the faculty as a whole at any time. The entire faculty then vote on the





75

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Program: Aerospace Engineering (Ph.D.)

PLO link

undergraduate degrees so entering graduate students are typically ready to immediately pursue advanced work. The department ensures that all instructors are highly qualified full-time or part-time faculty members who have advanced degrees and/or extensive experience in the field. The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years.

understand the relevance of program objectives and content. UCAR empanels an internal University review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs. The Department faculty evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies and collectively decide upon an appropriate course of action to rectify any program deficiencies

recommendations and those that are approved are used as the basis for course and program revision proposals that are submitted through the University’s curriculum management system. The UCAR program review reports are a source of guidance to the department including guidance relating to curricula.

https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-PhD-AE.pdf


76

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

that have been identified.

Department: Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering Program: Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering (Computational Fluid and Solid Mechanics) (M.S.)


Engineering graduate programs tend to be disciplinary with applicants having recently received similar or closely related undergraduate degrees so entering graduate students are typically ready to immediately pursue advanced work. The department ensures that all instructors are highly qualified full-time or part-time faculty members who have advanced degrees UCAR process Fall 2017. and/or extensive experience in the field. The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years.

Faculty are responsible for taking feedback from students and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. UCAR empanels an internal University review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs. The Department faculty evaluate the implications of data collected in support of





https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-AME-Computational-Fluid-and-Solid-Mechanics.pdf


77

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies and collectively decide upon an appropriate course of action to rectify any program deficiencies that have been identified.

Department: Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering Program: Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering (Dynamics and Control) (M.S.)


Engineering graduate programs tend to be disciplinary with applicants having recently received similar or closely related undergraduate degrees so entering graduate students are typically ready to immediately pursue advanced work. The department ensures that all instructors are highly qualified full-time or part-time faculty members who have advanced degrees and/or extensive experience in the field. The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years.

Faculty are responsible for taking feedback from students and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. UCAR empanels an internal University review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate





https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-AME-Dynamics-and-Control.pdf


78

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

and undergraduate academic programs. The Department faculty evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies and collectively decide upon an appropriate course of action to rectify any program deficiencies that have been identified.

Department: Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering Program: Mechanical Engineering (B.S.)


Capstone courses have rubrics, Writing 340 uses a portfolio review, and physics courses use concept inventories. The Department uses scores on some assignments in particular courses to assess attainment of outcomes.

The Department Curriculum Committee (DCC) accumulates and interprets the evidence. Individual faculty submit course journals for all undergraduate courses every semester. The DCC reviews these journals annually to determine where problems have developed and recommend approaches for resolving any identified problems.

Based on the assessment data, the Department Curriculum Committee makes recommendations to the Department as a whole for ways individual courses and the curriculum as a whole could be improved. The faculty then vote on the recommendations and those that are approved are used as the basis for course and program revision proposals that are submitted through the University’s curriculum management system.

Fall 2015 ABET review, 6-year accreditation renewal Fall 2016 – Summer 2022

Department: Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering Program: Mechanical Engineering (M.S.)


Engineering graduate programs tend to be disciplinary with applicants having recently received similar or closely related undergraduate degrees so entering graduate students are typically ready to immediately

Faculty are responsible for taking feedback from students and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content.

Individual faculty may propose curriculum adjustments to the faculty as a whole at any time. The entire faculty then vote on the recommendations and those that are approved are used as the basis for course and program revision

UCAR process Fall 2017; UCAR MS process Spring 2021





https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-BS-ME.pdf



https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-ME.pdf


79

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

pursue advanced work. The department ensures that all instructors are highly qualified full-time or part-time faculty members who have advanced degrees and/or extensive experience in the field. The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years.

UCAR empanels an internal University review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs. The Department faculty evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies and collectively decide upon an appropriate course of action to rectify any program deficiencies that have been identified.

proposals that are submitted through the University’s curriculum management system. The UCAR program review reports are a source of guidance to the department including guidance relating to curricula.


80

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Department: Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering Program: Mechanical Engineering (Energy Conversion) (M.S.)


Engineering graduate programs tend to be disciplinary with applicants having recently received similar or closely related undergraduate degrees so entering graduate students are typically ready to immediately pursue advanced work. The department ensures that all instructors are highly qualified full-time or part-time faculty members who have advanced degrees and/or extensive experience in the field. The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years.ars.

Faculty are responsible for taking feedback from students and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. UCAR empanels an internal University review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs. The Department faculty evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the





https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-ME-Energy-Conversion-SIS.pdf


81

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

studies and collectively decide upon an appropriate course of action to rectify any program deficiencies that have been identified.

Department: Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering Program: Mechanical Engineering (Nuclear Power) (M.S.)


Engineering graduate programs tend to be disciplinary with applicants having recently received similar or closely related undergraduate degrees so entering graduate students are typically ready to immediately pursue advanced work. The department ensures that all instructors are highly qualified full-time or part-time faculty members who have advanced degrees and/or extensive experience in the field. The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years.

Faculty are responsible for taking feedback from students and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. UCAR empanels an internal University review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs.





https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-ME-Nuclear-Power.pdf


82

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

The Department faculty evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies and collectively decide upon an appropriate course of action to rectify any program deficiencies that have been identified.

Department: Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering Program: Mechanical Engineering (Engineer)


Engineering graduate programs tend to be disciplinary with applicants having recently received similar or closely related undergraduate degrees so entering graduate students are typically ready to immediately pursue advanced work. The department ensures that all instructors are highly qualified full-time or part-time faculty members who have advanced degrees and/or extensive experience in the field. The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected

Faculty are responsible for taking feedback from students and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. UCAR empanels an internal University review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and





https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-Engr-ME.pdf


83

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years.

addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs. The Department faculty evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies and collectively decide upon an appropriate course of action to rectify any program deficiencies that have been identified.

Department: Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering Program: Mechanical Engineering (Ph.D.)


Engineering graduate programs tend to be disciplinary with applicants having recently received similar or closely related undergraduate degrees so entering graduate students are typically ready to immediately pursue advanced work. The department ensures that all instructors are highly qualified full-time or part-time faculty members who have advanced degrees and/or extensive experience in the field. The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a

Faculty are responsible for taking feedback from students and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. UCAR empanels an internal University review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars





https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-PhD-ME.pdf


84

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years.

from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs. The Department faculty evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies and collectively decide upon an appropriate course of action to rectify any program deficiencies that have been identified.

Department: Astronautical Engineering Program: Astronautical Engineering (B.S.)

Yes ABET Program Educational Objectives and Student Outcomes are published on the Department website. ABET Student Outcomes are published on the Viterbi School of Engineering website

Capstone design course assesses student achievement in all learning outcomes. Course final presentation is reviewed by industry experts as well as by faculty Required coursework is assessed by analyzing student graded work in each area of learning

Curriculum Reviews are held every three years and are attended by program constituents: students, faculty, alumni and industry. Review attendees consider the assessment results and report to the Chair More generally the process of program improvement is documented in the appropriate chapter of the

Findings may result in recommendations for revision of the curriculum, ranging from small changes such as a new textbook to major changes such as addition of a new course. The most recent such major change was the addition in 2019 of a second semester to the spacecraft systems design course ASTE 331 taken in the third year.


https://astronautics.usc.edu/academics/bachelor-science-programs/

https://astronautics.usc.edu/academics/bachelor-science-programs/




85

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

accreditation page. PLO link

ASTE self-study document submitted to ABET every six years. The last document was submitted in summer 2015.

Department: Astronautical Engineering Program: Astronautical Engineering (M.S.)


Engineering graduate programs tend to be disciplinary, soliciting applications from students completing corresponding undergraduate or closely related programs. Thus, students have the depth necessary to immediately pursue advanced work. The department ensures that instructors are highly qualified, consisting either of full time faculty or, as needed, part time faculty members who are experienced, have advanced degrees, and are prominent in the field and/or the profession. The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years.

Degree directors are responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is

Degree directors might propose curriculum adjustments to the faculty at any time to be implemented in due course, typically within a year. The changes might be based on any number of considerations, but all are intended to strengthen the program. The UCAR program review reports are a source of guidance to the department. This includes advice relating to curricula. This guidance is routinely amplified by the Dean’s office.

Department formed Spring 2010; UCAR process as emphasis in M.S. Aerospace Engineering, Fall 2000; UCAR MS process Fall 2020; next UCAR process Fall 2021

https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-BS-ASTE.pdf



https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-ASTE.pdf


86

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs.

Department: Astronautical Engineering Program: Astronautical Engineering (Engineer)


Engineering graduate programs tend to be disciplinary, soliciting applications from students completing corresponding undergraduate or closely related programs. Thus, students have the depth necessary to immediately pursue advanced work. The department ensures that instructors are highly qualified, consisting either of full time faculty or, as needed, part time faculty members who are experienced, have advanced degrees, and are prominent in the field and/or the profession. The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The

Degree directors are responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department.


Department formed Spring 2010; UCAR process as emphasis in Engineer in Aerospace Engineering, Fall 2000; next UCAR process Fall 2021



https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-Engr-ASTE.pdf


87

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years.

The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs.

Department: Astronautical Engineering Program: Astronautical Engineering (Ph.D.)


Engineering graduate programs tend to be disciplinary, soliciting applications from students completing corresponding undergraduate or closely related programs. Thus, students have the depth necessary to immediately pursue advanced work. The department ensures that instructors are highly qualified, consisting either of full time faculty or, as needed, part time faculty members who are experienced, have advanced degrees, and are prominent in the field and/or the profession. The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected

Degree directors are responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other


Department formed Spring 2010; UCAR process as emphasis in Ph.D. in Aerospace Engineering, Fall 2000; next UCAR process Fall 2021



https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-PhD-ASTE.pdf


88

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program


institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs. Ph.D. programs receive special attention.

Department: Biomedical Engineering Program: Biomedical Data Analytics (M.S.)


Engineering graduate programs tend to be disciplinary, soliciting applications from students completing corresponding undergraduate or closely related programs. Thus, students have the depth necessary to immediately pursue advanced work. The department ensures that instructors are highly qualified, consisting either of full time faculty or, as needed, part time faculty members who are experienced, have advanced degrees, and are prominent in the field and/or the profession. The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that

Degree directors are responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments


Program effective Fall 2020; to be reviewed in next UCAR process



https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-Biomedical-Data-Analytics.pdf


89

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years.

of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs.

Department: Biomedical Engineering Program: Biomedical Engineering (B.S.)


Capstone course has a rubric, writing uses a portfolio review, physics uses concept inventory, department uses scores on some particular assignments, alumni survey, we also use surveys and comparative data from Educational Benchmarking Inc. (EBI)

Department has a committee to accumulate this evidence and analyze it. The School has a Division of Engineering Education (DEE) that receives reports of the assessment data and is charged with making recommendations to the department curriculum committee.

Based on the assessment data, the Department Committee and the DEE make recommendations to the curriculum committee to improve courses.


Department: Biomedical Engineering Program: Biomedical Engineering (M.S.)


Engineering graduate programs tend to be disciplinary, soliciting applications from students completing corresponding undergraduate or closely related

Degree directors are responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better

Degree directors might propose curriculum adjustments to the faculty at any time to be implemented in due course, typically within a year. The


https://bme.usc.edu/academics/undergraduate-programs/

https://bme.usc.edu/academics/undergraduate-programs/



https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-BS-BME.pdf




90

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

PLO link

programs. Thus, students have the depth necessary to immediately pursue advanced work. The department ensures that instructors are highly qualified, consisting either of full time faculty or, as needed, part time faculty members who are experienced, have advanced degrees, and are prominent in the field and/or the profession. The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years.

understand the relevance of program objectives and content. Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs.

changes might be based on any number of considerations, but all are intended to strengthen the program. The UCAR program review reports are a source of guidance to the department. This includes advice relating to curricula. This guidance is routinely amplified by the Dean’s office.

Department: Biomedical Engineering

Yes Viterbi School of Engineering website Program Learning

Engineering graduate programs tend to be disciplinary, soliciting applications from students

Degree directors are responsible for taking feedback from students and

Degree directors might propose curriculum adjustments to the faculty at any time to be


https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-BME.pdf



91

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Program: Biomedical Engineering (Medical Imaging and Imaging Informatics) (M.S.)

Objectives page PLO link

completing corresponding undergraduate or closely related programs. Thus, students have the depth necessary to immediately pursue advanced work. The department ensures that instructors are highly qualified, consisting either of full time faculty or, as needed, part time faculty members who are experienced, have advanced degrees, and are prominent in the field and/or the profession. The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years.

faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs.

implemented in due course, typically within a year. The changes might be based on any number of considerations, but all are intended to strengthen the program. The UCAR program review reports are a source of guidance to the department. This includes advice relating to curricula. This guidance is routinely amplified by the Dean’s office.


https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-BME-Medical-Imaging-and-Imaging-Informatics.pdf


92

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Department: Biomedical Engineering Program: Biomedical Engineering (Ph.D.)



Degree directors are responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate





https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-PhD-BME.pdf


93

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

academic programs. Ph.D. programs receive special attention.

Department: Biomedical Engineering Program: Medical Device and Diagnostic Engineering (M.S.)



Degree directors are responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the





https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-Medical-Device-and-Diagnostic-Engineering.pdf


94

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs.

Department: Chemical Engineering and Materials Science (Mork Family) Program: Chemical Engineering (B.S.)






Department: Chemical Engineering and Materials Science (Mork Family) Program: Chemical Engineering (M.S.)


Engineering graduate programs tend to be disciplinary, soliciting applications from students completing corresponding undergraduate or closely related programs. Thus, students have the depth necessary to immediately pursue advanced work. The department ensures that instructors are highly qualified, consisting either of full time faculty or, as needed, part time faculty members who are experienced, have advanced

The department Executive Committee (consisting of a representative from each of the three disciplines within the department) is responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. Department faculty members evaluate the

The Executive Committee might propose curriculum adjustments to the faculty at any time to be implemented in due course, typically within a year. The changes might be based on any number of considerations, but all are intended to strengthen the program. The UCAR program review reports are a source of guidance to the department. This includes advice relating to curricula. This guidance is routinely amplified by the


https://chems.usc.edu/academics/undergraduate-programs/

https://chems.usc.edu/academics/undergraduate-programs/



https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-BS-CHE.pdf



https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-CHE.pdf


95

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

degrees, and are prominent in the field and/or the profession. The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years.

implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs.

Dean’s office.

Department: Chemical Engineering and Materials Science (Mork Family) Program: Chemical Engineering (Engineer)


Engineering graduate programs tend to be disciplinary, soliciting applications from students completing corresponding undergraduate or closely related programs. Thus, students have the depth necessary to immediately pursue advanced work.

The department Executive Committee (consisting of a representative from each of the three disciplines within the department) is responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the

The Executive Committee might propose curriculum adjustments to the faculty at any time to be implemented in due course, typically within a year. The changes might be based on any number of considerations, but all are intended to strengthen the




https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-Engr-CHE.pdf


96

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

The department ensures that instructors are highly qualified, consisting either of full time faculty or, as needed, part time faculty members who are experienced, have advanced degrees, and are prominent in the field and/or the profession. The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years.

field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs.

program. The UCAR program review reports are a source of guidance to the department. This includes advice relating to curricula. This guidance is routinely amplified by the Dean’s office.


97

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Department: Chemical Engineering and Materials Science (Mork Family) Program: Chemical Engineering (Ph.D.)



The department Executive Committee (consisting of a representative from each of the three disciplines within the department) is responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the

The Executive Committee might propose curriculum adjustments to the faculty at any time to be implemented in due course, typically within a year. The changes might be based on any number of considerations, but all are intended to strengthen the program. The UCAR program review reports are a source of guidance to the department. This includes advice relating to curricula. This guidance is routinely amplified by the Dean’s office.




https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-PhD-CHE.pdf


98

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program


Department: Chemical Engineering and Materials Science (Mork Family) Program: Materials Engineering (M.S.)



The department Executive Committee (consisting of a representative from each of the three disciplines within the department) is responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other

The department Executive Committee might propose curriculum adjustments to the faculty at any time to be implemented in due course, typically within a year. The changes might be based on any number of considerations, but all are intended to strengthen the program. The UCAR program review reports are a source of guidance to the department. This includes advice relating to curricula. This guidance is routinely amplified by the Dean’s office.




https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-Materials-Engineering.pdf


99

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs.

Department: Chemical Engineering and Materials Science (Mork Family) Program: Materials Science (M.S.)


Engineering graduate programs tend to be disciplinary, soliciting applications from students completing corresponding undergraduate or closely related programs. Thus, students have the depth necessary to immediately pursue advanced work. The department ensures that instructors are highly qualified, consisting either of full time faculty or, as needed, part time faculty members who are experienced, have advanced degrees, and are prominent in the field and/or the profession. The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting

The department Executive Committee (consisting of a representative from each of the three disciplines within the department) is responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The





https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-Materials-Science.pdf


100

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years.

internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs.

Department: Chemical Engineering and Materials Science (Mork Family) Program: Materials Science and Engineering (Engineer)

No The program is in revision and is not currently accepting applications.

Department: Chemical Engineering and Materials Science (Mork Family) Program: Materials Science (Ph.D.)


Engineering graduate programs tend to be disciplinary, soliciting applications from students completing corresponding undergraduate or closely related programs. Thus, students have the depth necessary to immediately pursue advanced work. The department ensures that instructors are highly qualified, consisting either of full time

The department Executive Committee (consisting of a representative from each of the three disciplines within the department) is responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content.

The department Executive Committee might propose curriculum adjustments to the faculty at any time to be implemented in due course, typically within a year. The changes might be based on any number of considerations, but all are intended to strengthen the program. The UCAR program review reports

UCAR process Spring 2018



https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-PhD-MASC.pdf


101

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

faculty or, as needed, part time faculty members who are experienced, have advanced degrees, and are prominent in the field and/or the profession. The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years.

Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs. Ph.D. programs receive special attention.

are a source of guidance to the department. This includes advice relating to curricula. This guidance is routinely amplified by the Dean’s office.

Department: Chemical Engineering and Materials Science (Mork Family)


Engineering graduate programs tend to be disciplinary, soliciting applications from students completing corresponding

The department Executive Committee (consisting of a representative from each of the three disciplines within

The department Executive Committee might propose curriculum adjustments to the faculty at any time to be





102

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Program: Petroleum Engineering (M.S.)

PLO link

undergraduate or closely related programs. Thus, students have the depth necessary to immediately pursue advanced work. The department ensures that instructors are highly qualified, consisting either of full time faculty or, as needed, part time faculty members who are experienced, have advanced degrees, and are prominent in the field and/or the profession. The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years.

the department) is responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate

implemented in due course, typically within a year. The changes might be based on any number of considerations, but all are intended to strengthen the program. The UCAR program review reports are a source of guidance to the department. This includes advice relating to curricula. This guidance is routinely amplified by the Dean’s office.

https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-PTE.pdf


103

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

academic programs.

Department: Chemical Engineering and Materials Science (Mork Family) Program: Petroleum Engineering (Digital Oilfield Technologies) (M.S.)



The department Executive Committee (consisting of a representative from each of the three disciplines within the department) is responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is


UCAR process under prior name, Petroleum Engineering (Smart Oilfield Technology) (M.S.), Spring 2018



https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-PTE-Digital-Oilfield-Technologies.pdf


104

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program


Department: Chemical Engineering and Materials Science (Mork Family) Program: Petroleum Engineering (Geoscience Technologies) (M.S.)



The department Executive Committee (consisting of a representative from each of the three disciplines within the department) is responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically





https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-PTE-Geoscience-Technologies.pdf


105

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program


consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs.

Department: Chemical Engineering and Materials Science (Mork Family) Program: Petroleum Engineering (Engineer)



The department Executive Committee (consisting of a representative from each of the three disciplines within the department) is responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review





https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-Engr-PTE.pdf


106

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program


report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs.

Department: Chemical Engineering and Materials Science (Mork Family) Program: Petroleum Engineering (Ph.D.)


Engineering graduate programs tend to be disciplinary, soliciting applications from students completing corresponding undergraduate or closely related programs. Thus, students have the depth necessary to immediately pursue advanced work. The department ensures that instructors are highly qualified, consisting either of full time faculty or, as needed, part time faculty members who are experienced, have advanced degrees, and are prominent in the field and/or the profession.

The department Executive Committee (consisting of a representative from each of the three disciplines within the department) is responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR





https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-PhD-PTE.pdf


107

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program


self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs. Ph.D. programs receive special attention.

Department: Civil and Environmental Engineering (Sonny Astani) Program: Applied Mechanics (B.S.)



Department has a committee to accumulate this evidence and analyze it. The School has a Division of Engineering Education (DEE) that receives reports of the assessment data and is charged with making recommendations to the





https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-BS-APMA.pdf


108

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

department curriculum committee.

Department: Civil and Environmental Engineering (Sonny Astani) Program: Civil Engineering (B.S.)






Department: Civil and Environmental Engineering (Sonny Astani) Program: Civil Engineering (M.S.)



Degree directors are responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that



https://cee.usc.edu/academics/abet-information/




https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-BS-CE.pdf



https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-CE.pdf


109

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program


provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs.

Department: Civil and Environmental Engineering (Sonny Astani) Program: Civil Engineering (Advanced Design and Construction Technology) (M.S.)


Engineering graduate programs tend to be disciplinary, soliciting applications from students completing corresponding undergraduate or closely related programs. Thus, students have the depth necessary to immediately pursue advanced work. The department ensures that instructors are highly qualified, consisting either of full time faculty or, as needed, part time faculty members who are experienced, have advanced degrees, and are prominent in the

Degree directors are responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for


Program effective Fall 2020; to be reviewed in next UCAR process Fall 2021 (expected)



https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-CE-Advanced-Design-and-Construction-Technology.pdf


110

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

field and/or the profession. The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years.

each review an internal review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs.

Department: Civil and Environmental Engineering (Sonny Astani) Program: Civil Engineering (Construction Engineering) (M.S.)


Engineering graduate programs tend to be disciplinary, soliciting applications from students completing corresponding undergraduate or closely related programs. Thus, students have the depth necessary to immediately pursue advanced work. The department ensures that instructors are highly qualified, consisting either of full time faculty or, as needed, part time faculty members who are

Degree directors are responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the

Degree directors might propose curriculum adjustments to the faculty at any time to be implemented in due course, typically within a year. The changes might be based on any number of considerations, but all are intended to strengthen the program. The UCAR program review reports are a source of guidance to the department. This includes advice relating to curricula. This guidance




https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-CE-Construction-Engineering.pdf


111

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

experienced, have advanced degrees, and are prominent in the field and/or the profession. The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years.

conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs.

is routinely amplified by the Dean’s office.

Department: Civil and Environmental Engineering (Sonny Astani) Program: Civil Engineering (Structural Engineering) (M.S.)



Degree directors are responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data

Degree directors might propose curriculum adjustments to the faculty at any time to be implemented in due course, typically within a year. The changes might be based on any number of considerations, but all are intended to strengthen the program. The UCAR program review reports are a source of guidance to the




https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-CE-Structural-Engineering.pdf


112

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program


collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs.

department. This includes advice relating to curricula. This guidance is routinely amplified by the Dean’s office.

Department: Civil and Environmental Engineering (Sonny Astani) Program: Civil Engineering (Transportation Engineering) (M.S.)


Engineering graduate programs tend to be disciplinary, soliciting applications from students completing corresponding undergraduate or closely related programs. Thus, students have the depth necessary to immediately pursue advanced work. The department ensures that

Degree directors are responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. Department faculty

Degree directors might propose curriculum adjustments to the faculty at any time to be implemented in due course, typically within a year. The changes might be based on any number of considerations, but all are intended to strengthen the program.




https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-CE-Transportation-Engineering.pdf


113

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

instructors are highly qualified, consisting either of full time faculty or, as needed, part time faculty members who are experienced, have advanced degrees, and are prominent in the field and/or the profession. The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years.

members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs.

The UCAR program review reports are a source of guidance to the department. This includes advice relating to curricula. This guidance is routinely amplified by the Dean’s office.

Department: Civil and Environmental Engineering (Sonny Astani) Program: Civil Engineering (Transportation Systems) (M.S.)



Degree directors are responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content.

Degree directors might propose curriculum adjustments to the faculty at any time to be implemented in due course, typically within a year. The changes might be based on any number of considerations, but all are intended to strengthen the




https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-CE-Transportation-Systems-SIS.pdf


114

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program


Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs.


Department: Civil and Environmental Engineering (Sonny Astani) Program: Civil Engineering (Water and


Engineering graduate programs tend to be disciplinary, soliciting applications from students completing corresponding undergraduate or closely related programs. Thus, students have the

Degree directors are responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of

Degree directors might propose curriculum adjustments to the faculty at any time to be implemented in due course, typically within a year. The changes might be based on any




https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-CE-Water-and-Waste-Management-SIS.pdf


115

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Waste Management) (M.S.) depth necessary to immediately pursue advanced work. The department ensures that instructors are highly qualified, consisting either of full time faculty or, as needed, part time faculty members who are experienced, have advanced degrees, and are prominent in the field and/or the profession. The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years.

program objectives and content. Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs.

number of considerations, but all are intended to strengthen the program. The UCAR program review reports are a source of guidance to the department. This includes advice relating to curricula. This guidance is routinely amplified by the Dean’s office.

Department: Civil and Environmental Engineering (Sonny Astani)



Degree directors are responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the

Degree directors might propose curriculum adjustments to the faculty at any time to be implemented in due course,





116

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Program: Civil Engineering (Engineer)

PLO link



typically within a year. The changes might be based on any number of considerations, but all are intended to strengthen the program. The UCAR program review reports are a source of guidance to the department. This includes advice relating to curricula. This guidance is routinely amplified by the Dean’s office.

Department: Civil and Environmental

Yes Viterbi School of Engineering website

Engineering graduate programs tend to be disciplinary, soliciting

Degree directors are responsible for taking

Degree directors might propose curriculum adjustments to the


https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-Engr-CE.pdf


117

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Engineering (Sonny Astani) Program: Civil Engineering (Ph.D.)

Program Learning Objectives page PLO link

applications from students completing corresponding undergraduate or closely related programs. Thus, students have the depth necessary to immediately pursue advanced work. The department ensures that instructors are highly qualified, consisting either of full time faculty or, as needed, part time faculty members who are experienced, have advanced degrees, and are prominent in the field and/or the profession. The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years.

feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs. Ph.D. programs receive special

faculty at any time to be implemented in due course, typically within a year. The changes might be based on any number of considerations, but all are intended to strengthen the program. The UCAR program review reports are a source of guidance to the department. This includes advice relating to curricula. This guidance is routinely amplified by the Dean’s office.



https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-PhD-CE.pdf


118

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

attention.

Department: Civil and Environmental Engineering (Sonny Astani) Program: Construction Management (M.C.M.)



Degree directors are responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student





https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MCM.pdf


119

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs.

Department: Civil and Environmental Engineering (Sonny Astani) Program: Transportation Systems Management (M.S.)





Program effective Fall 2018; to be reviewed in next UCAR process Fall 2021 (expected)



https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-Transportation-Systems-Management.pdf


120

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program


Department: Civil and Environmental Engineering (Sonny Astani) Program: Environmental Engineering (B.S.)






Department: Civil and Environmental Engineering (Sonny Astani) Program: Environmental Engineering (M.S.)



Degree directors are responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the

Degree directors might propose curriculum adjustments to the faculty at any time to be implemented in due course, typically within a year. The changes might be based on any number of considerations, but all are intended to strengthen the program. The UCAR program review reports are a source of guidance to the department. This includes advice relating to curricula. This guidance is routinely amplified by the






https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-BS-ENE.pdf



https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-ENE.pdf


121

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program


studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs.

Dean’s office.

Department: Civil and Environmental Engineering (Sonny Astani) Program: Environmental Engineering (Engineer)



Degree directors are responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data

Degree directors might propose curriculum adjustments to the faculty at any time to be implemented in due course, typically within a year. The changes might be based on any number of considerations, but all are intended to strengthen the program. The UCAR program review reports are a source of guidance to the




https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-Engr-ENE.pdf


122

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program


collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs.

department. This includes advice relating to curricula. This guidance is routinely amplified by the Dean’s office.

Department: Civil and Environmental Engineering (Sonny Astani) Program: Engineering (Environmental Engineering) (Ph.D.)


Engineering graduate programs tend to be disciplinary, soliciting applications from students completing corresponding undergraduate or closely related programs. Thus, students have the depth necessary to immediately pursue advanced work. The department ensures that

Degree directors are responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. Department faculty





https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-PhD-ENE.pdf


123

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

instructors are highly qualified, consisting either of full time faculty or, as needed, part time faculty members who are experienced, have advanced degrees, and are prominent in the field and/or the profession. The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years.

members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs. Ph.D. programs receive special attention.


Department: Computer Science / Electrical and Computer Engineering (Ming Hsieh) Program:

Yes ABET Program Educational Objectives and Student Outcomes are published on the Department

Capstone course has a rubric, writing uses a portfolio review, physics uses concept inventory, department uses scores on some particular assignments, alumni survey, we also use surveys and

Department has a committee to accumulate this evidence and analyze it. The School has a Division of Engineering Education (DEE) that receives reports of the



https://www.cs.usc.edu/academic-programs/undergrad/


124

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Computer Engineering and Computer Science (B.S.)

website. ABET Student Outcomes are published on the Viterbi School of Engineering website accreditation page. PLO link

comparative data from Educational Benchmarking Inc. (EBI)

assessment data and is charged with making recommendations to the department curriculum committee.

Department: Computer Science Program: Computer Science (B.S.)






Department: Computer Science Program: Computer Science (Games) (B.S.)


Capstone course has a rubric, writing uses a portfolio review, physics uses concept inventory, department has a comprehensive assessment based on course assignments, alumni survey, we also use surveys and comparative data from Educational Benchmarking Inc. (EBI).

Department has a committee to accumulate this evidence and analyze it. The School has a Division of Engineering Education (DEE) that receives reports of the assessment data and is charged with making recommendations to the department curriculum

Based on the assessment data, the Department Committee and the DEE make recommendations to the curriculum committee to improve courses. Degree directors might propose curriculum adjustments to the faculty at any time to be implemented in due course,





https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-BS-CECS.pdf





https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-BS-CSCI.pdf



https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-BS-CSCI-Games.pdf


125

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program


committee. Degree directors are responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student



126

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program


Department: Computer Science Program: Computer Science/Business Administration (B.S.)


Capstone course has a rubric, writing uses a portfolio review, physics uses concept inventory, department has a comprehensive assessment based on course assignments, alumni survey, we also use surveys and comparative data from Educational Benchmarking Inc. (EBI). The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years.

Department has a committee to accumulate this evidence and analyze it. The School has a Division of Engineering Education (DEE) that receives reports of the assessment data and is charged with making recommendations to the department curriculum committee. Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department.

Based on the assessment data, the Department Committee and the DEE make recommendations to the curriculum committee to improve courses. The UCAR program review reports are a source of guidance to the department. This includes advice relating to curricula. This guidance is routinely amplified by the Dean’s office.




https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-BS-CSBA.pdf


127

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program


Department: Computer Science Program: Computer Science (M.S.)


Engineering graduate programs tend to be disciplinary, soliciting applications from students completing corresponding undergraduate or closely related programs. Thus, students have the depth necessary to immediately pursue advanced work. The department ensures that instructors are highly qualified, consisting either of full time faculty or, as needed, part time faculty members who are experienced, have advanced degrees, and are prominent in the field and/or the profession. The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and

Degree directors are responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two





https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-CSCI.pdf


128

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years.

days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs.

Department: Computer Science Program: Computer Science (Artificial Intelligence) (M.S.)


Engineering graduate programs tend to be disciplinary, soliciting applications from students completing corresponding undergraduate or closely related programs. Thus, students have the depth necessary to immediately pursue advanced work. The department ensures that instructors are highly qualified, consisting either of full time faculty or, as needed, part time faculty members who are experienced, have advanced degrees, and are prominent in the field and/or the profession. The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of

Degree directors are responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent





https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-CSCI-Artificial-Intelligence.pdf


129

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years.

faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs.

Department: Computer Science Program: Computer Science (Computer Networks) (M.S.)








https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-CSCI-Computer-Networks.pdf


130

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program



Department: Computer Science Program: Computer Science (Computer Security) (M.S.)


Engineering graduate programs tend to be disciplinary, soliciting applications from students completing corresponding undergraduate or closely related programs. Thus, students have the depth necessary to immediately pursue advanced work. The department ensures that instructors are highly qualified, consisting either of full time faculty or, as needed, part time faculty members who are experienced, have advanced degrees, and are prominent in the field and/or the profession. The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a

Degree directors are responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The





https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-CSCI-Computer-Security.pdf


131

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program



Department: Computer Science Program: Computer Science (Data Science) (M.S.)


Engineering graduate programs tend to be disciplinary, soliciting applications from students completing corresponding undergraduate or closely related programs. Thus, students have the depth necessary to immediately pursue advanced work. The department ensures that instructors are highly qualified, consisting either of full time faculty or, as needed, part time faculty members who are experienced, have advanced degrees, and are prominent in the field and/or the profession. The University Committee on

Degree directors are responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review





https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-CSCI-Data-Science.pdf


132

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years.

report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs.

Department: Computer Science Program: Computer Science (Game Development) (M.S.)



Degree directors are responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal





https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-CSCI-Game-Development.pdf


133

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program


review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs.

Department: Computer Science Program: Computer Science (High Performance Computing and Simulations) (M.S.)








https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-CSCI-High-Performance-Computing-and-Simulation.pdf


134

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program



Dean’s office.

Department: Computer Science Program: Computer Science (Intelligent Robotics) (M.S.)


Engineering graduate programs tend to be disciplinary, soliciting applications from students completing corresponding undergraduate or closely related programs. Thus, students have the depth necessary to immediately pursue advanced work. The department ensures that instructors are highly qualified, consisting either of full time faculty or, as needed, part time

Degree directors are responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR

Degree directors might propose curriculum adjustments to the faculty at any time to be implemented in due course, typically within a year. The changes might be based on any number of considerations, but all are intended to strengthen the program. The UCAR program review reports are a source of guidance to the department. This includes advice




https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-CSCI-Intelligent-Robotics.pdf


135

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

faculty members who are experienced, have advanced degrees, and are prominent in the field and/or the profession. The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years.

self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs.

relating to curricula. This guidance is routinely amplified by the Dean’s office.

Department: Computer Science Program: Computer Science (Multimedia and Creative Technologies) (M.S.)


Engineering graduate programs tend to be disciplinary, soliciting applications from students completing corresponding undergraduate or closely related programs. Thus, students have the depth necessary to immediately pursue advanced work. The department ensures that instructors are highly qualified,

Degree directors are responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. Department faculty members evaluate the

Degree directors might propose curriculum adjustments to the faculty at any time to be implemented in due course, typically within a year. The changes might be based on any number of considerations, but all are intended to strengthen the program. The UCAR program review reports




https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-CSCI-Multimedia-and-Creative-Technologies.pdf


136

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

consisting either of full time faculty or, as needed, part time faculty members who are experienced, have advanced degrees, and are prominent in the field and/or the profession. The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years.



Department: Computer Science Program: Computer Science (Scientists and Engineers) (M.S.)





Program effective Spring 2014; to be reviewed in next UCAR process



https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-CSCI-Scientists-and-Engineers.pdf


137

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program




Department: Computer Science Program: Computer Science (Software Engineering) (M.S.)


Engineering graduate programs tend to be disciplinary, soliciting applications from students completing corresponding undergraduate or closely related programs. Thus, students have the depth necessary to immediately

Degree directors are responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and

Degree directors might propose curriculum adjustments to the faculty at any time to be implemented in due course, typically within a year. The changes might be based on any number of considerations, but all




https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-CSCI-Software-Engineering.pdf


138

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

pursue advanced work. The department ensures that instructors are highly qualified, consisting either of full time faculty or, as needed, part time faculty members who are experienced, have advanced degrees, and are prominent in the field and/or the profession. The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years.

content. Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs.

are intended to strengthen the program. The UCAR program review reports are a source of guidance to the department. This includes advice relating to curricula. This guidance is routinely amplified by the Dean’s office.

Department: Computer Science Program:



Degree directors are responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the

Degree directors might propose curriculum adjustments to the faculty at any time to be implemented in due course,

Program effective Fall 2015; to be reviewed in




139

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Computer Science (Tsinghua/Viterbi Joint Program) (M.S.)

PLO link




next UCAR process

Department: Computer Science

Yes Viterbi School of Engineering website

Engineering graduate programs tend to be disciplinary, soliciting

Degree directors are responsible for taking

Degree directors might propose curriculum adjustments to the


https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-CSCI-THU-USC-dual-degree.pdf


140

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Program: Computer Science (Ph.D.)

Program Learning Objectives page PLO link

applications from students completing corresponding undergraduate or closely related programs. Thus, students have the depth necessary to immediately pursue advanced work. The department ensures that instructors are highly qualified, consisting either of full time faculty or, as needed, part time faculty members who are experienced, have advanced degrees, and are prominent in the field and/or the profession. The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years.

feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs.

faculty at any time to be implemented in due course, typically within a year. The changes might be based on any number of considerations, but all are intended to strengthen the program. The UCAR program review reports are a source of guidance to the department. This includes advice relating to curricula. This guidance is routinely amplified by the Dean’s office.



https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-PhD-CSCI.pdf


141

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Department: Computer Science (Data Science) Program: Applied Data Science (M.S.)





Program effective Fall 2018; to be reviewed in-cycle by UCAR



https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-Applied-Data-Science.pdf


142

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

academic programs.

Department: Computer Science (Data Science) Program: Communication Data Science (M.S.)








https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-Communication-Data-Science.pdf


143

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program


Department: Computer Science (Data Science) Program: Communication Data Science (Tsinghua/Viterbi Joint Program) (M.S.)

Viterbi School of Engineering website Program Learning Objectives page PLO link







https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-Communication-Data-Science-Tsinghua-Viterbi-Joint-Program.pdf


144

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program


Department: Computer Science (Data Science) Program: Cyber Security Engineering (M.S.)








https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-Cyber-Security-Engineering.pdf


145

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program


Department: Computer Science (Data Science) Program: Data Science (B.A.)








https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-BA-Data-Science.pdf


146

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program



Department: Computer Science (Data Science) Program: Environmental Data Science (M.S.)








https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-Environmental-Data-Science.pdf


147

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program



Department: Computer Science (Data Science) Program: Healthcare Data Science (M.S.)



Degree directors are responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically





https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-Healthcare-Data-Science.pdf


148

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program



Department: Electrical and Computer Engineering (Ming Hsieh) Program: Computer Engineering (M.S.)





UCAR process Fall 2010; next UCAR process Spring 2021



https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-CENG.pdf


149

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program



Department: Electrical and Computer Engineering (Ming Hsieh) Program: Computer Engineering (Ph.D.)








https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-PhD-CENG.pdf


150

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program


internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs. Ph.D. programs receive special attention.

Department: Electrical and Computer Engineering (Ming Hsieh) Program: Electrical and Computer Engineering (B.S.)





Fall 2015 ABET review (as B.S. Electrical Engineering), 6-year accreditation renewal Fall 2016 – Summer 2022

https://minghsiehece.usc.edu/academics/bs/program-details/

https://minghsiehece.usc.edu/academics/bs/program-details/



https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-BS-ECE.pdf


151

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Department: Electrical and Computer Engineering (Ming Hsieh) Program: Electrical and Computer Engineering (Machine Learning and Data Science) (M.S.)


Engineering graduate programs tend to be disciplinary, soliciting applications from students completing corresponding undergraduate or closely related programs. Thus, students have the depth necessary to immediately pursue advanced work. The department ensures that instructors are highly qualified, consisting either of full time faculty or, as needed, part time faculty members who are experienced, have advanced degrees, and are prominent in the field and/or the profession. The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years






https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-ECE-Machine-Learning-and-Data-Science.pdf


152

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

academic programs.

Department: Electrical and Computer Engineering (Ming Hsieh) Program: Electrical Engineering (M.S.)





UCAR process Fall 2010; UCAR MS process Fall 2019; next UCAR process Spring 2021



https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-EE.pdf


153

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program


Department: Electrical and Computer Engineering (Ming Hsieh) Program: Electrical Engineering (Computer Architecture) (M.S.)


Engineering graduate programs tend to be disciplinary, soliciting applications from students completing corresponding undergraduate or closely related programs. Thus, students have the depth necessary to immediately pursue advanced work. The department ensures that instructors are highly qualified, consisting either of full time faculty or, as needed, part time faculty members who are experienced, have advanced degrees, and are prominent in the field and/or the profession. The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years






https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-EE-Computer-Architecture.pdf


154

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program


Department: Electrical and Computer Engineering (Ming Hsieh) Program: Electrical Engineering (Computer Networks) (M.S.)









https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-EE-Computer-Networks.pdf


155

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program


Department: Electrical and Computer Engineering (Ming Hsieh) Program: Electrical Engineering (Electric Power) (M.S.)








https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-EE-Electric-Power-SIS.pdf


156

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years


Department: Electrical and Computer Engineering (Ming Hsieh) Program: Electrical and Computer Engineering (VLSI Design) (M.S.)








https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-EE-VLSI-Design.pdf


157

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program



Department: Electrical and Computer Engineering (Ming Hsieh) Program: Electrical Engineering (Wireless Health Technology) (M.S.)








https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-EE-Wireless-Health-Technology.pdf


158

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years


Department: Electrical and Computer Engineering (Ming Hsieh) Program: Electrical Engineering (Wireless Networks) (M.S.)








https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-EE-Wireless-Networks.pdf


159

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program



Department: Electrical and Computer Engineering (Ming Hsieh) Program: Electrical Engineering (Engineer)








https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-Engr-EE.pdf


160

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program



Department: Electrical and Computer Engineering (Ming Hsieh) Program: Electrical Engineering (Ph.D.)


Engineering graduate programs tend to be disciplinary, soliciting applications from students completing corresponding undergraduate or closely related programs. Thus, students have the depth necessary to immediately pursue advanced work. The department ensures that instructors are highly qualified, consisting either of full time faculty or, as needed, part time faculty members who are experienced, have advanced degrees, and are prominent in the field and/or the profession. The University Committee on

Degree directors are responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review





https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-PhD-EE.pdf


161

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years.

report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs. Ph.D. programs receive special attention.

Department: Electrical and Computer Engineering (Ming Hsieh) Program: Financial Engineering (M.S.)








https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-Financial-Engineering.pdf


162

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program



Dean’s office.

Department: Electrical and Computer Engineering (Ming Hsieh) Program: Quantum Information Science (M.S.)








https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-Quantum-Information-Science.pdf


163

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

faculty members who are experienced, have advanced degrees, and are prominent in the field and/or the profession. The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years



Department: Industrial and Systems Engineering (Daniel J. Epstein) Program: Analytics (M.S.)








https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-Analytics.pdf


164

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program




Department: Industrial and Systems Engineering (Daniel J. Epstein) Program: Engineering Management (M.S.)





UCAR process Spring 2015; UCAR MS process Spring 2021



https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-EMT.pdf


165

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program




Department: Industrial and Systems Engineering (Daniel J. Epstein) Program: Health Systems Management Engineering (M.S.)


Engineering graduate programs tend to be disciplinary, soliciting applications from students completing corresponding undergraduate or related programs. Thus, students have the depth necessary to immediately

Degree directors are responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and

Degree directors might propose curriculum adjustments to the faculty at any time to be implemented in due course, typically within a year. The changes might be based on any number of considerations, but all




https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-Health-Systems-Management-Engineering.pdf


166

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

pursue advanced work. The department ensures that instructors are highly qualified, consisting either of full time faculty or, as needed, part time faculty members who are experienced, have advanced degrees, and are prominent in the field and/or the profession. The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years.

content. Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs.

are intended to strengthen the program. The UCAR program review reports are a source of guidance to the department. This includes advice relating to curricula. This guidance is routinely amplified by the Dean’s office.

Department: Industrial and Systems Engineering (Daniel J. Epstein) Programs:

Yes ABET Program Educational Objectives and Student Outcomes are published on the

Capstone course has a rubric, writing uses a portfolio review, physics uses concept inventory, department uses scores on some particular assignments, alumni

Department has a committee to accumulate this evidence and analyze it. The School has a Division of Engineering Education (DEE)


Fall 2015 ABET review, 6-year accreditation renewal Fall 2016 –


167

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Industrial and Systems Engineering (B.S.)

Department website. ABET Student Outcomes are published on the Viterbi School of Engineering website accreditation page. PLO link

survey, we also use surveys and comparative data from Educational Benchmarking Inc. (EBI)

that receives reports of the assessment data and is charged with making recommendations to the department curriculum committee.

Summer 2022

Department: Industrial and Systems Engineering (Daniel J. Epstein) Program: Industrial and Systems Engineering (M.S.)






https://ise.usc.edu/academics/undergraduate-program/

https://ise.usc.edu/academics/undergraduate-program/



https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-BS-ISE.pdf



https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-ISE.pdf


168

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program



Department: Industrial and Systems Engineering (Daniel J. Epstein) Program: Industrial and Systems Engineering (Engineer)








https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-Engr-ISE.pdf


169

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program



Department: Industrial and Systems Engineering (Daniel J. Epstein) Program: Industrial and Systems Engineering (Ph.D.)








https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-PhD-ISE.pdf


170

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program


internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs. Ph.D. programs receive special attention.

Department: Industrial and Systems Engineering (Daniel J. Epstein) Program: Manufacturing Engineering (M.S.)



Degree directors are responsible for taking feedback from students and faculty and surveilling the field as needed to better understand the relevance of program objectives and content. Department faculty members evaluate the implications of data collected in support of UCAR self-studies and the conclusions presented in the studies. UCAR empanels for each review an internal





https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-Manufacturing-Engineering.pdf


171

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program


review committee that provides a program review report to the department and to the Dean’s office. The internal committee is informed by the comments of an external assessment site team that typically consists of two prominent faculty scholars from other institutions who spend two days visiting the department. The program review report is comprehensive and addresses all aspects of the department, including faculty productivity, student quality, and both graduate and undergraduate academic programs.

Department: Industrial and Systems Engineering (Daniel J. Epstein) Program: Operations Research Engineering (M.S.)








https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-ORE.pdf


172

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program



Dean’s office.

Department: Industrial and Systems Engineering (Daniel J. Epstein) Program: Product Development Engineering (M.S.)








https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-Product-Development-Engineering.pdf


173

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

faculty members who are experienced, have advanced degrees, and are prominent in the field and/or the profession. The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years.



Department: Viterbi School of Engineering (Green Technologies) Program: Green Technologies (M.S.)





Program effective Fall 2009; to be reviewed in subsequent UCAR / UCAR MS process



https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-Green-Technologies.pdf


174

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program




Department: Viterbi School of Engineering (Systems Architecting and Engineering) Program: Systems Architecting and Engineering (M.S.)


Engineering graduate programs tend to be multidisciplinary, soliciting applications from students completing corresponding undergraduate or closely related programs. Thus, students have the depth necessary to immediately pursue advanced


Degree directors might propose curriculum adjustments to the faculty at any time to be implemented in due course, typically within a year. The changes might be based on any number of considerations, but all are intended to strengthen the

to be reviewed in next Dept. of Astronautical Engr. UCAR process Fall 2021



https://viterbischool.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PLO-MS-SAE.pdf


175

Program

(1)

Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed

?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)



program

work. The department ensures that instructors are highly qualified, consisting either of full time faculty or, as needed, part time faculty members who are experienced, have advanced degrees, and are prominent in the field and/or the profession. The University Committee on Academic Review (UCAR) takes each academic unit through a faculty-centered, internal and external review process that requires completion of a self-study and compilation of supporting data. As part of this effort, data of a variety of sorts is collected concerning graduate and undergraduate programs. The cycle for these comprehensive reviews is seven to ten years.



USC Davis School of Gerontology

176


learning outcomes

been developed?

Yes/No



materials)?







(5) How are the findings

used?

(6) Date of the last program review for this degree

program.

Human Development and Aging (B.S.)

Yes PLO link Accreditation Exam Questions Course Performance Internship Evaluation

Faculty Undergraduate Programs Committee Internship Director Program Director Student Advisement Staff Aggregate outcomes review

To evaluate individual students To review aggregate data and make programmatic adjustments as needed

Accreditation for Gerontology Education Council (AGEC (2019)

Lifespan Health (B.S.) Yes POL link Accreditation Exam Questions Course Performance Internship Evaluation

Faculty Undergraduate Programs Committee Internship Director Program Director Student Advisement Staff Aggregate outcomes review



Gerontology (M.A.) Yes PLO link Accreditation Exam Questions Course Performance

Faculty Masters Programs Committee Program Director Student Advisement Staff Aggregate outcomes review



Gerontology (M.S.) Yes PLO link Accreditation Exam Questions Course Performance Capstone Course Internship Evaluation

Faculty Undergraduate Programs Committee Program Director Internship Director Student Advisement Staff Aggregate outcomes review



Aging Services Management (M.A.S.M)

Yes PLO link Course Performance Faculty Masters Programs Committee Program Director Student Advisement Staff

To evaluate individual students

2010 (external) 2015 (internal)

https://gero.usc.edu/files/Learning_Objectives_HD&A.pdf

https://gero.usc.edu/files/Learning_Objectives_Lifespan.pdf

https://gero.usc.edu/files/Learning_Objectives_MAG.pdf

https://gero.usc.edu/files/Learning_Objectives_MSG.pdf

https://gero.usc.edu/files/Learning_Objectives_MASM.pdf


177

Aggregate outcomes review To review aggregate data and make programmatic adjustments as needed

Category

(1) Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed?

Yes/No



materials)?







(5) How are the findings

used?


program.

Long Term Care Administration (M.A.

Yes PLO link Course Performance Faculty Masters Programs Committee Program Director Student Advisement Staff Aggregate outcomes review


2010 (external) 2015 (internal)

Nutrition Healthspan and Longevity (M.S.)

Yes PLO link Course Performance Preceptor Evaluation Registered Dietician Licensing Exam

Faculty Masters Programs Committee Program Director Preceptor Director Student Advisement Staff Aggregate outcomes review


Accreditation Council for Nutrition and Dietetics (2017)

Medical Gerontology (M.A.)

Yes PLO link

Course Performance Faculty Program Chair Program Director Masters Programs Committee Student Advisement Staff Aggregate outcomes review


University Curriculum Committee (2019) WSCUC Expedited Supplemental Accreditation (2020)

Senior Living Hospitality (M.A.)

Yes PLO link Course Performance Faculty Program Chair Masters Programs Committee Program Director Student Advisement Staff Aggregate outcomes review


University Curriculum Committee (2019) WSCUC Expedited Supplemental Accreditation (2019)

https://gero.usc.edu/files/Learning_Objectives_MLTCA.pdf

https://gero.usc.edu/files/Learning_Objectives_MS_Nutrition.pdf

https://gero.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Learning_Objectives_MAGM.pdf

https://gero.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Learning_Objectives_MASLH.pdf


178

Category

(1) Have formal

learning outcomes

been developed?

Yes/No


outcomes published (e.g., catalog, syllabi, other materials)?

(3) Other than GPA, what data / evidence are used to determine that graduates have achieved stated outcomes for the degree? (e.g., capstone course, portfolio review, licensure examination)?




(6) Date of the last program review for this degree program.

Gerontology (Ph.D) Yes PLO link Publishable Paper Requirement Qualifying Exam Performance Dissertation Defense

Program Chair PhD Committee Student’s Advisement Committee

To evaluate individual students and make recommendations about continuation in the program To review aggregate data and make programmatic adjustments as needed

UCAR (2014)

Biology of Aging (Ph.D)

Yes PLO link Qualifying Exam Performance Dissertation Defense

Program Chair PhD Committee Student’s Advisement Committee


UCAR (2014)

https://gero.usc.edu/files/Learning_Objectives_PhD.pdf

https://gero.usc.edu/files/Learning_Objectives_PhD.pdf

USC Gould School of Law

179

Category

(1) Have formal


developed?

Yes/No



materials)?








(6) Date of the

last program


Master of Laws (LLM)

Yes Learning outcomes for our LLM degree are published on our website Goals for the LLM are set out in the syllabi for our required and strongly suggested LLM courses, Introduction to American Law, Legal Research, and Legal Writing. PLO

Grades; Exit Surveys

Associate Deans See Below 15 Spring 2009

Master of Comparative Law (MCL)

Yes Learning outcomes for our MCL degree are published on our website Goals for the MCL include comparative law coursework and a writing requirement. PLO


Associate Deans See Below 16 Spring 2009

Master of Dispute Resolution (MDR)

Yes Learning outcomes for our MDR degree are published on our website


Associate Deans See Below 17 Launched in Fall 2016,

15 For our international LLM program, law school grades are one important measure of learning. The law school grades on a strict curve. Because we mix our LLM students with JD students in many classes, LLM grades give

us some measure of whether the LLMs are learning basic skills and knowledge in a way comparable to our JD students. We need this feedback in part because English is a second language for many of our LLM students. If

they can compete effectively with the JD students for grades, we have some assurance that language barriers are being overcome. We also measure LLM learning with exit surveys designed to test whether the students are

satisfied with their education.

16 For our MCL program, law school grades are also an important measure of learning. Their grades are also on a strict curve. As they are taught by instructors who teach in our on JD and LLM programs, they are able to

assess that students are learning basic skills and knowledge in a way that is comparable to our master’s degree program students. We also measure MCL learning with exit surveys designed to test whether the students are

satisfied with their education.

17 For our MDR program, law school grades are also an important measure of learning. Their grades are also on a strict curve. As they are taught by instructors who teach in our JD and LLM programs, they are able to

assess that students are learning basic skills and knowledge in a way that is comparable to our master’s degree program students. We also measure MDR learning with exit surveys designed to test whether the students

are satisfied with their education.

https://gould.usc.edu/academics/degrees/llm/

https://gould.usc.edu/academics/degrees/mcl/


180

Category

(1) Have formal


developed?

Yes/No



materials)?








(6) Date of the

last program


Goals for the MDR are set out in the syllabi for our required courses and electives. PLO

not yet reviewed

Master of Laws in Alternative Dispute Resolution (LLM in ADR)

Yes Learning outcomes for our LLM in ADR degree are published on our website Goals for the LLM in ADR are set out in the syllabi for our required courses and electives. PLO


Associate Deans See Below 18 Launched in Fall 2016, not yet reviewed

Master of Laws in International Business & Economic Law (LLM in IBEL)

Yes Learning outcomes for our LLM in IBEL degree are published on our website Goals for the LLM in IBEL include coursework in international business and economic law. PLO



Master of Laws in Privacy Law &

Yes Learning outcomes for our LLM in Privacy Law & Cybersecurity


Associate Deans See Below 20 Will launch in Fall 2020,

18 For our LLM in ADR program, law school grades are also an important measure of learning. Their grades are also on a strict curve. As they are taught by instructors who teach in our JD and LLM programs, they are able

to assess that students are learning basic skills and knowledge in a way that is comparable to our master’s degree program students. We also measure LLM in ADR learning with exit surveys designed to test whether the

students are satisfied with their education.

19 For our LLM in IBEL program, law school grades are also an important measure of learning. Their grades are also on a strict curve. As they are taught by instructors who teach in our JD and LLM programs, they are able to

assess that students are learning basic skills and knowledge in a way that is comparable to our master’s degree program students. We also measure LLM in IBEL learning with exit surveys designed to test whether the

students are satisfied with their education.

20 For our LLM in Privacy Law and Cybersecurity program, law school grades will be an important measure of learning. Their grades will be on a strict curve. As they will be taught by instructors who teach in our J.D. and LLM

programs, they will be able to assess that students are learning basic skills and knowledge in a way that is comparable to our master’s degree program students. We also measure LLM in Privacy Law and Cybersecurity

learning with exit surveys designed to test whether the students are satisfied with their education.

https://gould.usc.edu/academics/degrees/mdr/curriculum/

https://gould.usc.edu/academics/degrees/llm-in-adr/curriculum/



181

Category

(1) Have formal


developed?

Yes/No



materials)?








(6) Date of the

last program


Cybersecurity (LLM in PLCS)

degree are published on our website Goals for the LLM in PLCS include coursework in privacy law and cybersecurity. PLO

not yet reviewed

Master of Studies in Law (MSL)

Yes Learning outcomes for our MSL degree are published on our website Goals for the MSL. are set out in the syllabi for our required courses and electives. PLO



Online Master of Laws (Online LLM)

Yes Learning outcomes for our Online LLM degree are published on our website Goals for the online LLM are set out in the syllabi for our required courses and electives. PLO


Associate Deans See Below 22 Launched in Fall 2014; Reviewed in Fall 2017.

21 For our MSL program, law school grades are also an important measure of learning. Their grades are also on a strict curve. As they are taught by instructors who teach in our on campus and online master’s programs,

they are able to assess that students are learning basic skills and knowledge in a way that is comparable to our master’s degree program students. We also measure MSL learning with exit surveys designed to test whether

the students are satisfied with their education.

22 For our international online LLM program, law school grades are also an important measure of learning. Their grades are also on a strict curve. As they are taught by instructors who teach in both our on campus and

online master’s programs, they are able to assess that students are learning basic skills and knowledge in a way that is comparable to our master’s degree program students. We also measure online LLM learning with exit

surveys designed to test whether the students are satisfied with their education.


https://gould.usc.edu/academics/degrees/residential-msl/

https://onlinellm.usc.edu/student-experience/


182

Category

(1) Have formal


developed?

Yes/No



materials)?








(6) Date of the

last program


Online Master of Studies in Law (MSL)

Yes Learning outcomes for our Online MSL degree are published on our website: Goals for the online MSL. are set out in the syllabi for our required courses and electives. PLO


Associate Deans See Below23 Launched in Fall 2016. Reviewed in Fall 2017.

Law (J.D.) Yes In its Standard 302. Learning Outcomes, the ABA provides learning outcomes for J.D. degree programs which we follow and are published on our website: http://gould.usc.edu/academics/curriculum/juris-doctor-degree-requirements/ The USC Catalogue 2019-20 provides additional information relevant to learning outcomes for our J.D. degree: https://catalogue.usc.edu/preview_program.php?catoid=11&poid=10978&returnto=3756

Bar Passage; Learning Experience Evaluations

Deans, Director of Academic Support, Faculty; Dean, Academic Associate Dean

See Below24 Fall 2015

23 For our online MSL program, law school grades are also an important measure of learning. Their grades are also on a strict curve. As they are taught by instructors who teach in our on campus and online programs,

they are able to assess that students are learning basic skills and knowledge in a way that is comparable to our master’s degree program students. We also measure online MSL learning with exit surveys designed to test

whether the students are satisfied with their education. 24 Our main objective measure of JD student learning is the California Bar examination – taken by more than 70% of our graduates. Although hardly an accurate measure of all that we teach, the bar results provide regular

feedback on whether our students are learning the basic skills and knowledge thought necessary to practice law. Our pass rate fell to a problematic level during the early 1990s, which led us to adopt several measures

intended to improve student learning – an enhanced legal writing curriculum, and a broad academic support program for at-risk students. As a result of these programs, our bar pass rate has risen substantially, placing us

now at or near the top of all California law schools.

https://gould.usc.edu/academics/degrees/residential-msl/

http://gould.usc.edu/academics/curriculum/juris-doctor-degree-requirements/



https://catalogue.usc.edu/preview_program.php?catoid=11&poid=10978&returnto=3756




183

Category

(1) Have formal


developed?

Yes/No



materials)?








(6) Date of the

last program


Subjects tested on the bar are outlined for our students on our web page. http://gould.usc.edu/academics/state-bar-examinations/bar-admission-in-california/ PLO

http://gould.usc.edu/academics/state-bar-examinations/bar-admission-in-california/



https://gould.usc.edu/academics/degrees/jd/curriculum/

USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

184

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)

Other than GPA, what data/evidence is used to determine that graduates have

achieved stated outcomes for the degree? (e.g., capstone course, portfolio review,


(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Department: American Studies and Ethnicity Programs:

• American Studies and Ethnicity (BA)

• American Studies and Ethnicity (African American Studies) (BA)

• American Studies and Ethnicity (Asian American Studies) (BA)

• American Studies and Ethnicity (Chicano/Latino Studies) (BA)

• American Studies and Ethnicity (American Popular Culture) (BA)

Yes Dornsife Website DUG/chair: Formal email to faculty to include Learning Objectives in course syllabi and meets with NTT faculty teaching GE/seminar courses about departmental Learning Objectives.

• Required Junior Seminar: Theory in Methods in AMST (AMST 350)

• Capstone courses:

• AMST 498: Senior Seminar

• Two-semester sequence AMST Honors Capstone Course (i.e., AMST 492-493: Senior Honors Thesis in AMST)

• Undergraduate Review Committee:

• The Director of Undergraduate Studies

• Undergraduate Advisor

• NTT and T/TT faculty

• Success of undergraduate courses, ASE degree requirements, capstone and benchmark courses (e.g., AMST 350 Junior Seminar) are critically assessed according to teaching evaluations and undergraduate surveys.

• The committee also reviews success of learning objectives, and provides guidance to faculty to teach according to the learning objectives

• The Undergraduate Review Committee discusses:

• Curricula innovations

• Compliance to new GE system

• Recommendations or mentoring programs for teaching improvement

2010

Department: American Studies and Ethnicity Program: American Studies and Ethnicity (PhD)

Yes Dornsife Website USC Graduate Handbook Website PLO link

• Screening examinations taken prior to 24 units

• Comprehensive Qualifying examinations taken after 24 units

• Ph.D. dissertation proposal

• Ph.D. dissertation defense

• Student productivity determined as by presentations and publications

• Success in external funding competitions

• Job offers

• Graduate Adviser

• Director of PhD Committee

• The Ph.D. guidance committee including an member outside of the program who represents the Vice Provost for Academic Programs

To determine whether the student has been successful at each stage of the program, to advance a student, to provide further guidance or to dismiss a student from the program

2010

Department: Anthropology Program: • Anthropology (BA)

Yes Dornsife Website

Capstone courses ANTH 410a and b Ethnographic research and fieldwork Global Studies majors take a Senior Seminar and write a Senior thesis, presented at the end of the year

Faculty committee of the whole Discussed with faculty review committee and reviewed with deans:

Spring 2013

http://dornsife.usc.edu/learning-objectives-by-department/


https://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/177/docs/gradhandbook2015.pdf

https://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/177/docs/gradhandbook2015.pdf

http://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/1/docs/PhD_Learning_Objectives_Social_Sciences.pdf




185

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




(4)



(5)


(6)



program

• Anthropology (Visual Anthropology) (BA)

• Global Studies (BA)

Development of specific foci in UG curriculum underway Implementation of Global Studies major

Department: Anthropology Program: Visual Anthropology (MVA)

Yes Dornsife Master's Degrees Website PLO link

Production of films required Jenny Cool, MVA Coordinator Discussed with faculty review committee and reviewed with deans

2012 outside review

Department: Art History Program: Art History (BA)

Yes Dornsife Website Department Website

• Semester-long undergraduate apprenticeship or internship

• Senior thesis • Capstone course: AHIS 415

• Director of Undergraduate Studies/Chair of Department

• Academic Affairs Advisor, Thesis supervisor and faculty committee (Apprenticeships)

• The USC Huntington Early Modern Studies Institute (Research)

Revised and updated core curriculum Closer ties with local museums

Spring 2016

Department: Art History Program: Art History (PhD)

Yes Dornsife Website USC Graduate Handbook Website PhD PLO link

• Screening examinations taken prior to 24/48 units

• 1st year review

• 2nd year review


• Ph.D. dissertation prospectus defense


• Student productivity determined as by presentations and publications


• Job offers

• Full faculty (1st year review)

• PhD Committee (2nd year review)

• The Ph.D. guidance committee including a member from outside the program.

To determine whether the student has been successful at each stage of the program, to advance to candidacy, to provide further guidance or to dismiss a student from the program.

2011-2012

Department: Biological Sciences Program:


• Two full audits of students’ course plans

• Periodic review of students’ grades • Midterm grade reports

• Undergraduate advisers review audits/midterm grade reports

• Help students plan course work

• Address deficits in degree progress.

Spring 2019

https://dornsife.usc.edu/masters-degrees/




http://dornsife.usc.edu/anth/masters-in-visual-anthropology/

http://dornsife.usc.edu/anth/masters-in-visual-anthropology/



https://dornsife.usc.edu/ahis/learning-goals-new/

https://dornsife.usc.edu/ahis/learning-goals-new/


https://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/235/docs/2015_Graduate_Guidelines.pdf

https://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/235/docs/2015_Graduate_Guidelines.pdf

http://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/1/docs/PhD_Learning_Objectives_-_Humanities.pdf



186

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Biological Sciences (BA, BS) • Review of the list of students not registered

• Fulfillment of capstone/ course requirements

• Prior to add/drop deadline, advisers review lists of their students who are not registered.

• Smaller introductory classes

• New classes for MCAT

• capstones in all specialties

Department: Biological Sciences Program: Human Biology (BA, BS)


Students must demonstrate proficiency in laboratory techniques, experimental design, and major core competencies via completion of projects in capstone courses for each BS major track Assessments occur primarily, but not exclusively, in 400-level HBIO courses. Alumni database provides information regarding acceptance into professional and graduate programs.

The evidence is interpreted by the Human & Evolutionary Biology (HEB) faculty by the faculty that teach upper level and capstone courses. The HEB faculty also undertake a periodic review of the assessment process.

The findings are used by the HEB faculty to assess learning outcomes. This occurs during the review process and it informs our curricula adjustments.

Spring 2019

Department: Biological Sciences Program: Marine and Environmental Biology (MEBL) (Progressive MS)

Yes Dornsife Website Department Website PLO link

Participation and presentations in coursework Cumulative final research paper

The instructors evaluate participation and presentation of coursework materials. A faculty committee evaluates the cumulative final research paper.


Department: Biological Sciences Program: Molecular Genetics and Biochemistry (MS)

Yes Dornsife Website PLO link

Participation and presentations in coursework Cumulative final research paper

The instructors evaluate participation and presentation of coursework materials A faculty committee evaluates the cumulative final research paper.

To determine whether the student has been successful at each stage of the program, to provide further guidance or to dismiss a student from the program

Department: Biological Sciences Program:

Yes Dornsife Website: PLO link


The Ph.D. guidance committee including an member outside of the program who represents the Vice Provost for Academic Program

To determine whether the student has been successful at each stage of the program,

2010



http://dornsife.usc.edu/bisc/learning-objectives/

https://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/1/docs/Masters_Program_Learning_Objectives_-_NS.pdf




http://dornsife.usc.edu/graduate-learning-objectives-by-division/


http://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/1/docs/PhD_Learning_Objectives_-_Natural_Sciences.pdf


187

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Biology (PhD)




• Student productivity determined by presentations and publications


• Job offers

to advance a student, to provide further guidance or to dismiss a student from the program

Department: Biological Sciences Program: Marine Biology and Biological Oceanography (PhD)


Screening examinations taken prior to 24 units





• Success in external funding competitions • Job offers

The Ph.D. guidance committee including an member outside of the program who represents the Vice Provost for Academic Programs


2010

Department: Biological Sciences Program: Computational Biology and Bioinformatics (PhD)








• Job offers

The Ph.D. guidance committee including a member outside of the program who represents the Vice Provost for Academic Programs


2010

Department: Biological Sciences Program: Integrative and Evolutionary Biology (PhD)


• Oral/written screening exam taken at end of first year, or after 24 units

• Comprehensive oral qualifying exam taken by end of third year on PhD dissertation proposal

The PhD guidance committee, including a faculty member outside IEB who represents the Office of the Vice Provost for Academic Programs.

To evaluate graduate student progress at each stage of the PhD program to help guide the student and offer self-

Never reviewed; program in existence since 2004








188

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




(4)



(5)


(6)



program

• Compile annual metrics on graduate student progress and achievement: conferences papers presented, grants obtained, journal articles published.

• post doc fellowships offers and job offers received.

measures of progress, or to provide the basis for warning and/or dismissal of graduate students who do not show consistent progress.

Department: Biological Sciences Program: Molecular Biology (PhD)








• Job offers

The Ph.D. guidance committee including an member outside of the program who represents the Vice Provost for Academic Programs


2010

Department: Chemistry Program:

• Chemistry (BA, BS)

• Chemistry (Chemical Nanoscience) (BS)

• Chemistry (Research) (BS)

• Chemistry (Chemical Biology) (BS)


Completion of directed research capstone course For Honors, two semesters of Research with results described in an undergraduate thesis.

Faculty mentor grade assignment for directed research For Honors, review committee.

• Design new curriculum, such as majors only courses and timing of course offered

• Continued assessment of degree tracks

• New laboratory facilities

April 2015

Department: Chemistry Program: Biochemistry (BS)


For Honors, completion of directed research, undergraduate thesis and/or completion of a research seminar class.

For Honors, review committee. Program is moving to enhanced supervision by Department of Chemistry; Chemistry suppling central coursework

April 2015




http://chem.usc.edu/undergraduate/Degree_Learning_Objectives.html


http://chem.usc.edu/undergraduate/Degree_Learning_Objectives.html


189

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Department: Chemistry (MA, MS)

Yes No separate objectives from the PhD program. This is not a terminal degree. Dornsife Website PLO link

No separate objectives from the PhD program. This is not a terminal degree.



Feb 2013

Department: Chemistry Program: Chemistry (PhD)






• Student productivity as determined by presentations and publications


• Job offers

The Ph.D. guidance committee including a member outside the program who represents the Vice Provost for Academic Programs

To determine whether the student has been successful at each stage of the program, to advance a student, to provide further guidance or to dismiss a student from the program. One course change.

Feb 2013

Department: Chemistry Program: Chemistry (Chemical Physics) (PhD)








• Job offers



Feb 2013

Department: Classics


Capstone course

Student work for the capstone project, divided into (a) a course on research methods taken by all graduating students and (b) an independent project carried out

To inform curricular changes and development

October 2012











http://dornsife.usc.edu/clas/why-study/


190

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Program: Classics (BA)

Students in Tracks I and II of the major can elect to take site translation exams in Greek and Latin given annually

under the direction of a faculty supervisor, is evaluated both by the instructor for the capstone course and by the project supervisor Exceptional work is referred by faculty supervisors to the undergraduate studies committee for additional review Oral presentation of the capstone project is assessed by faculty generally at an annual research colloquium Student performance on the annual translation exams is assessed by members of the undergraduate studies committee

Exceptional work on the capstone project is awarded departmental honors at graduation An award also is conferred each year for exceptional performance on the Greek and Latin translation exams

Department: Classics Program: Classics (PhD)


• Annual review of progress and quality of work

• Preliminary and qualifying exams

• Dissertation



• Job offers

Department faculty as a whole in annual reviews Faculty examining and dissertation committees evaluation of written prospectus and dissertation plus oral exam on each

To determine whether student has been successful at each stage of program; to provide guidance; to advance student in program or dismiss a student from the program; to determine whether student has mastered fundamentals of field and research skills and methodologies sufficiently to be awarded degree

October 2008

Department: Comparative Literature Program:


Honors Thesis Thesis supervisor Faculty committee

Assess student ability to engage in higher-level research informed by critical

Fall 2014





https://dornsife.usc.edu/colt/learning-objectives/


191

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Comparative Literature (BA)

thought and comparative analysis

Department: Comparative Studies in Literature and Culture Program:

• Comparative Studies in Literature and Culture (Comparative Literature) (PhD)

• Comparative Studies in Literature and Culture (Comparative Media & Culture) (PhD)

• Comparative Studies in Literature and Culture (French and Francophone Studies) (PhD)

• Comparative Studies in Literature and Culture (Spanish and Latin American Studies) (PhD)






• Student productivity as determined by • Presentations and publications


• Job offers



Spring 2016

Department: Earth Sciences Program:

• Earth Sciences (BA) • Geological Sciences (BS)


Advisement review Senior thesis research

Faculty advisor and department faculty undergraduate advisor

• Channel to appropriate coursework

• Enhanced field experiences around the world

2011

Department: Earth Sciences Program: Geological Sciences (PhD)







To determine whether the student has been successful at each stage of the program, to advance a student, to provide further

Fall 2007





http://dornsife.usc.edu/earth/learning-objectives-path-to-phd/



192

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




(4)



(5)


(6)



program



• Job offers

guidance or to dismiss a student from the program

Department: East Asian Languages and Cultures Program: East Asian Languages and Cultures (BA)


Core requirements in cross-cultural survey and cultural studies courses Language requirements in at least one of three East Asian languages Capstone seminars under development

The Committee of Undergraduate Studies and the relevant faculty review each student for language and cultural competency.

The core requirements have been revised New coursework for heritage speakers and maintenance courses in languages

Spring 2019

Department: East Asian Languages and Cultures Program: East Asian Languages and Cultures (PhD)


• Screening examinations taken prior to 24 units;

• Comprehensive Qualifying examinations taken after 24 units;

• Ph.D. dissertation proposal;

• Ph.D. dissertation defense;


• Success in external funding competitions; • Job offers

The Ph.D. guidance committee including a member from outside the program who represents the Vice Provost for Academic Programs

To determine whether the student has been successful at each stage of the program, to advance a student, to provide further guidance, or to dismiss a student from the program.

2014-2015 (post-review action report in 2016)

Department: East Asian Area Studies Program: East Asian Area Studies (BA)

Yes Brochure Dornsife Website

Each student must complete a pre-designated interdisciplinary mix of courses covering several key requirements

The undergraduate advisor regularly reviews student progress in terms of both GPA and course selection

The undergraduate adviser uses the findings to better guide students in academic planning. When necessary, he/she will enlist the help of academic services departments to assist the students to improve GPA

2010 (will conduct review in 2016-17)







193

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




(4)



(5)


(6)



program

and/or register for classes

Department: East Asian Area Studies Program: East Asian Area Studies (MA)

Yes Brochure Dornsife Website PLO link

MA thesis approved by 3 EASC affiliated faculty committee members

Three T/TT faculty USC Graduate School approval

To assist in future refinements of graduate studies and/or job placements

2010 (will conduct review in 2017-18)

Department: Economics Program:

• Economics (BA)

• Economics/Mathematics (BS)

• Political Economy (BA)

• Social Sciences (Economics) (BA)


(i) Not just overall GPA, but successful completion of a progression of courses (e.g., theory, statistics and econometrics) that contribute different elements to the achievement of the objectives; (ii) Some students do independent research courses, assessed not only by supervising faculty, but in poster sessions for the general faculty; (iii) Our proposed new major, Economics and Data Science, includes a capstone course. (iv) There is ongoing planning to incorporate new capstone possibilities for all economics majors. (v) The job placement success (e.g., repeated success in placements at the Federal Reserve and in economics consulting firms) suggests the curriculum is achieving its goals.

Department curriculum committee. Department leadership. All faculty in faculty meetings for decisions as appropriate.

(i) to design new majors (e.g., Economics and Data Science), joint majors (e.g., Philosophy, Politics, and Economics), new minors (e.g., Behavioral Economics); (ii) to adapt existing majors (e.g., changing information technology requirements in Mathematics and Economics); (iii) to adapt our core curriculum (e.g., econometric software in econometrics courses); (iv) to design new course offerings (e.g., Understanding Financial Crises, Economic Consulting and Applied Econometrics);

Spring 2012



https://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/1/docs/Masters_Program_Learning_Objectives_-_HUM_.pdf



194

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




(4)



(5)


(6)



program

(v) to foster and finance student support organizations (e.g., economics association, The Economic Review—an online undergraduate journal, peer tutoring); (vi) to develop and adapt career development programs.

Department: Economics Program: Economics (MA)


Students must receive at least a B in two Core required courses.

The Director of Master Studies Discussed with master’s faculty and staff graduate advisor.

Spring 2002; Spring 2010

Department: Economics Program: Economic Developmental Programming (MA)


Students must receive at least a B in two Core required courses.

The Director of Master Studies Discussed with master’s faculty and staff graduate advisor.

Spring 2002; Spring 2010

Department: Economics Program: Economics (PhD)




• Ph.D. dissertation proposal • Student productivity as determined by

presentations and publications


• Job offers



Spring 2002; Spring 2010; 2009-2010 Course change


https://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/1/docs/Masters_Program_Learning_Objectives_-_SS.pdf









195

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Department: English Program:

• English (BA) ENGL CRWT

• Narrative Studies (BA) NARS

Yes Dornsife Website And restated on every syllabus.

Every student in the English BA (ENGL, CRWT) must complete ENGL 491, a senior capstone seminar conducted by a research faculty. Every student in Narrative Studies (NARS) must complete ENGL 492, a capstone project either in a dedicated Capstone Seminar ENGL 492, or with a monitored independent faculty. All NARS students make a public presentation to the USC community at large, and it is recorded in video. Our strongest students compete for admission to ENGL 496 Honors Thesis Seminar, conducted by the Director of UG Studies, and each thesis is directed by two qualified research faculty. Each student also makes a public presentation of the thesis to the USC community at large, and it is recorded in video. Senior honors thesis.

Director of Undergraduate Studies (DUS) has overall and direct responsibility for integrity of Learning Outcomes, drawing upon the resources of the UG Studies Committee (UG Comm). The instructors for ENGL 491 are selected by DUS upon application and submission of a seminar proposal. Final problems or anomalies are referred to DUS or UG Comm. All NARS students attend public presentations before senior year to see the range of potential senior capstones and the standards that prevail. All seminar instructors attend all presentations and, if necessary, they are convened as a jury (with UG Comm) to review anomalies. All “independent” NARS capstones are evaluated and graded by a jury of NARS seminar instructors, and not by the independent adviser.

Theses and Capstones are regularly discussed by UG Comm, by the NARS jury, by the Honors Thesis jury, and continually monitored by DUS and Dept Chair. Based on these findings we have made structural adjustments to all three programs (Senior Capstone, Senior Honors Thesis, and NARS Capstone) over the several years of this DUS. Overall, we have raised standards simply by being systematically self-aware. All instructors understand that they are acting on behalf of the department as a whole, and not just in the context of their own tutelage. With each semester, we learn.

Spring 2016

Department: English Program: English and American Literature (PhD)







To determine whether the student has been successful at each stage of the program, to advance a student, to provide further

Fall 2000; Spring 2008





196

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




(4)



(5)


(6)



program



• Job offers

guidance or to dismiss a student from the program

Department: English Program: Literature and Creative Writing (PhD)


• Departmental Screening Procedure during first term of second year to assess progress

• Field Exams taken after coursework has been completed, overseen by three examiners

• Qualifying Exams taken after passing Fields, overseen by five professors including one outside member.



• Student productivity as determined by presentations, publications

• Success in external funding competitions • Job offers.

For the Screening Procedure, the Graduate Studies Committee reviews each student’s performance. For Field Exams, three professors review the essays. The Ph.D. guidance committee including an outside (the program) member works with the student before, during, and after the Qualifying Exams.

To determine whether the student has been successful at each stage of the program, to advance a student, to provide further guidance, or to dismiss a student from the program.

Spring 2006

Department: Environmental Studies Program Program: Environmental Studies (BA, BS) (4 program concentrations)

Yes In most courses, the first lecture of each semester is used to discuss learning objectives and which objectives the course addresses. Most syllabi refer to program objectives on the website. Goal of 100% compliance in all syllabi by Fall 2016. Dornsife Website

Required senior seminar capstone class An elective, formally mentored internship program through which students demonstrate competence on team projects, work performance and activities. Off-campus, experiential learning classes that align with learning goals highlighted in the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). Provide/promote courses that have opportunities for data handling, early research or early professional opportunities

Faculty use formal and informal metrics to gauge learning in individual classes. Courses have a mix of formal (exams, writing assignments) and non-traditional assignments (blogging, group projects, field projects) that are used for evaluation of learning Significant student awards or milestones are tracked (fellowship, graduate school placement, job placement).

End of semester student reviews help refine teaching strategies, learning outcomes and course success. Curriculum and faculty review committees are used to address issues and strengthen curriculum. Program effectiveness is reviewed with Deans.

Spring 2014





197

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Graduating seniors participate in program exit interviews to gain informal feedback on specific program strengths and weaknesses.

Department: Environmental Studies Program Program: Environmental Studies (MA)

Yes

Dornsife Website Department Website PLO link

Individual semester meetings with Graduate program advisor to discuss progress and performance.

Faculty use formal and informal metrics to gauge learning in individual classes. Courses have a mix of formal (exams, writing assignments) and non-traditional assignments (blogging, group projects, field projects) that are used for evaluation of learning. Significant student awards or milestones are tracked (fellowship, graduate school placement, job placement).

Graduate program director provides report to curriculum committee and faculty for discussion and needed curriculum changes End of semester student reviews help refine teaching strategies, learning outcomes and course success Curriculum and faculty review committees are used to address issues and strengthen curriculum. Program effectiveness is reviewed with Deans Starting Spring 2016, all graduating students will participate in program exit interviews to gain

Jan 2014 (Internal/ External)


https://dornsife.usc.edu/environmental-studies/learning-objectives



198

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




(4)



(5)


(6)



program

informal feedback on specific program learning strengths and weaknesses.

Department: Environmental Studies Program Program: Environmental Risk Analysis (MS)


No current students No current students No current students

Department: French and Italian Program: French (BA)


Successful completion of the two core courses (FREN-300, FREN-330), plus an additional five courses, out of which at least two must be at the 400 level. A maximum of two courses may be completed outside the department. No more than two courses may be in English.

Director of Undergraduate Studies; course instructors; Dornsife Advisor; Curriculum Committee

• Reevaluation of core courses (330)

• New and enhanced counseling for majors (DUS)

• New curriculum (i.e., Maymesters, new Upper Division courses)

• GE Development & Tagging

Fall 2013

Department: French and Italian Program: Italian (BA)


Successful completion of ITAL-320 plus five upper-division Italian courses, out of which two must be at the 400 level. A maximum of two courses may be completed outside the department. No more than three courses may be in English.

Director of Undergraduate Studies; course instructors; Dornsife Advisor; Curriculum Committee

• Reevaluation of core courses (320)

• New and enhanced counseling for majors (DUS)

• New curriculum (i.e., Maymesters, new Upper Division courses)

• GE Development & Tagging

Fall 2013







199

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Department: Gender and Sexuality Studies Program: Gender and Sexuality Studies (BA) Minors: --Gender and Sexuality Studies --LGBTQ Studies --Gender and Social Justice


• Mandatory senior capstone class

• Monitoring of our students’ GPA

• Guidance by academic adviser

Faculty review committee Chair interprets the evidence in consultation with the academic adviser.

Update curriculum New minor in gender and social justice Focus on students interested in careers in social policy, with an emphasis on gender.

Spring 2017

Department: History Program: History (BA)


Required methods and approaches course Faculty teaching required methods and approaches course

Revision, when necessary, to courses or curriculum sequencing

Spring 2012

Department: History Program: History and Social Science Education (BA)


Capstone course Faculty teaching required capstone course Revision, when necessary, to courses or curriculum sequencing

Spring 2012

Department: History Program: Law, History, & Culture (BA)


Two required courses focusing on core content

Faculty teaching required content courses Revision, when necessary, to courses or curriculum sequencing

New program; never reviewed

Department: History Program: Contemporary Latino and Latin American Studies (BA)


Capstone course Faculty teaching required capstone course Revision, when necessary, to courses or curriculum sequencing

New program, never reviewed







200

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Department: History Program: History (PhD)




• Ph.D. dissertation prospectus


• Student productivity as determined by presentations, publications

• Success in external funding competitions • Job offers



Fall 2015

Department: International Relations Program: International Relations (BA)


Honors theses 400 level cap stone course required four mandatory 200 level courses grounding students in IR theory, quantitative and qualitative methods, and international political economy

Curriculum committee ensures building of learning goals from 200 to 400 levels. Honors theses are evaluated by at least 2 faculty – one who is expert in the research topic and one who supervised the theses from start to finish.

• Completed exhaustive revision of major in FY 14-15

• Updated course titles and catalogue descriptions

• Major reworking of 200 level syllabi

• Requirements for students to take the entire 4 course 200 level core before taking 400 level courses

• New faculty hires

• refinement of two-semester program held in Washington D.C.

2009-2010 internal and external UPR; 2014-2015 internal self-study

Department: International Relations Program: International Relations (Global Business) (BA)


Honors theses 400 level capstone courses four mandatory 200 level courses


• Revision of IRGB major in FY 14-15

• dropped courses that are no longer taught

2009-2010 internal and external UPR; 2014-2015 internal self study.







201

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




(4)



(5)


(6)



program

• Replaced with more suitable, reliable offerings

Department: International Relations Program: International Relations and the Global Economy (BA)

Yes Dornsife Website Honors theses 400 level cap stone courses IRGE majors have Econ core requirements.


To determine satisfactory completion of the major

(IRGE major was introduced in 2013 and has not been part of an exhaustive self-study)

Department: Latin American and Iberian Cultures (formerly, Spanish and Portuguese) Program: Spanish (BA) Latin American and Iberian Cultures, Media and Politics (BA)


All majors must successfully complete a 400-level course, or write an honors thesis as part of SPAN 490.

The Undergraduate Studies Committee in collaboration with the entire faculty.

We are currently revising all our prerequisites to ensure a better sequence toward 400-level courses.

2011

Department: Linguistics Program:

• Linguistics (BA)

• Linguistics/East Asian Languages and Cultures (BA)

• Linguistics/Philosophy (BA)

• Linguistics/Cognitive Science (BA)

• Computational Linguistics (BA)


Capstone Experience satisfied by any of the following:

• A research paper written for LING 497, LING 490, or another Linguistic 400-level course.

• A poster presentation at the USC UG symposium or at a Linguistics conference

• A summer internship related to the degree

Faculty review committee Programmatic changes: • New speech therapy course • New emphasis on computational linguistics More considered guidance for student articles and conference presentations

Spring 2017





202

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Steering students toward fellowship opportunities in critical languages

Department: Linguistics Program: Linguistics (PhD); Linguistics (East Asian Linguistics) (PhD)




• Ph.D. dissertation proposal • Ph.D. dissertation defense



• job offers



2012-2013

Department: Mathematics Programs: Mathematics (BA, BS); Applied and Computational Mathematics (BA, BS)


MATH 425a: capstone course that covers essential math ideas and techniques.

Undergraduate faculty adviser; course instructors; Dornsife Advisors

• Enhanced support for core classes

• New curriculum for engineers and scientists, e.g., 229

• New and enhanced counseling for majors

• New special sections for majors, e.g., 227

Fall 2012

Department: Mathematics Program: Mathematics (MA)


Screening examinations Faculty review committee Discussed with faculty review committee and reviewed with deans

Fall 2012








203

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Department: Mathematics Program: Applied Mathematics (MA, MS)

Yes Dornsife Website PLO Link

Master’s Thesis (MS) Screening examinations (MA)

Faculty review committee Discussed with faculty review committee and reviewed with deans

Spring 2010

Department: Mathematics Program: Computational Molecular Biology (MS)


See Molecular and Computational Biology under Biological Sciences

Department: Mathematics Program: Mathematical Finance (MS)


Final capstone project Faculty review committee Discussed with faculty review committee and reviewed with deans

Fall 2013

Department: Mathematics Program: Statistics (MS)


Master’s Thesis Faculty review committee Discussed with faculty review committee and reviewed with deans

Spring 2010

Department: Mathematics Program: Mathematics (PhD)








• Job offers


To determine whether the student has been successful at each stage of the program, to advance a student, to provide further guidance or to dismiss a student from the program. Eight course changes

Spring 2010; 2009-2010 course changes.

Department: Mathematics


Screening examinations taken prior to 24 units

The Ph.D. guidance committee including a member outside the program who

To determine whether the student has been successful at each

Spring 2010;
















204

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Program: Applied Mathematics (PhD)

Comprehensive Qualifying examinations taken after 24 units Ph.D. dissertation proposal Ph.D. dissertation defense Student productivity as determined by presentations and publications Success in external funding competitions job offers

represents the Vice Provost for Academic Programs

stage of the program, to advance a student, to provide further guidance or to dismiss a student from the program. Eight course changes

2009-2010 course changes.

Department: Middle East Studies Program: Middle East Studies (BA)


Honor’s thesis As of Spring 2020: Capstone course MDES 475: Seminar in Middle East Studies

Faculty review committee Discussed with faculty review committee and reviewed with deans Refining standards and placement in Arabic and Persian Development of upper division courses in modern cultures

Spring 2016 Review of the Persian Language Program.

Department: Neuroscience Program:

• Neuroscience (BA, BS);

• Computational Neuroscience (BS)

Yes Department Website

• Two audits of student course plans

• Periodic review of students’ grade report

• Midterm grade reports

• Review of the list of students not registered

• Fulfillment of capstone/ course requirements

Undergraduate advisers review audits/midterm grade reports Prior to add/drop deadline, advisers review lists of their students who are not registered.

Help students plan course work review degree progress each semester

Department: Neuroscience Program: Neuroscience (PhD)






The Ph.D. guidance and dissertation committee including a member outside the program who represents the Vice Provost for Academic Programs

To determine whether the student has been successful at each stage of the program, to advance a student, to provide further guidance or to dismiss

2009


http://dornsife.usc.edu/usc-neuroscience/learning-objectives/




205

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




(4)



(5)


(6)



program



• Job offers

a student from the program

Department: Philosophy Program: Philosophy (BA) Philosophy, Politics and Law (BA) Philosophy and Physics (BA) Philosophy, Politics and Economics (BA)

Yes Dornsife Website 2010 development of survey to measure faculty assessment of student progress in UD courses: Students completing 400-level courses score slightly higher in general competencies than students completing 300-level courses. Honors students must complete an honors capstone course. All Philosophy, Politics and Economics majors must complete a capstone course.

Undergraduate committee Undergraduate committee looks for trends, draws conclusions and develops recommendations to be brought to the attention of the full faculty. No findings as yet for Philosophy and Physics (BA); Philosophy, Politics and Economics (BA)

2014 Philosophy and Physics (BA) and the Philosophy, Politics and Economics (BA) programs are new programs (2019) and have not been reviewed yet

Department: Philosophy Program: Philosophy (PhD)







• Job offers



Spring 2014

Department: Physics and Astronomy Program:


• Written examinations

• Oral examinations

• Presentations • Coursework problems

Faculty review committee • Develop lectures and coursework

Spring 2012





http://dornsife.usc.edu/physics/learning-goals


206

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




(4)



(5)


(6)



program

• Astronomy (BA, BS)

• Physics (BA, BS)

• Biophysics (BS)

• Physical Sciences (BS)

• Physics/Computer Science (BS)

• Laboratory and project reports

• Refine astronomical observation sessions and field trips

• Enrich laboratory classes

• Inform one-on-one mentoring in laboratories

• Direction for available research opportunities

Department: Physics and Astronomy Program: Physics (MA, MS)

Yes No separate objectives from the PhD program. This is not a terminal degree. Dornsife Website PLO link




Department: Physics and Astronomy Program: Physics (PhD)







• Job offers



Fall 2015

Department: Political Science

Yes Dornsife Website Completion of 2 out of 3 entry level courses, 3 out of 4 distribution area courses, and 3 courses in one designated theme of concentration.

The Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, chaired by the Director of Undergraduate Studies.

2017: Completed new curriculum structure (2 of 4 entry level courses, 3 of 4

2014-2015





http://dornsife.usc.edu/physics/graduate-learning-goals/





207

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Program: Political Science (BA)

Number of majors who receive university and national awards, such as Truman, Renaissance, Fulbright awards and/or complete an honors thesis.

Honors theses are evaluated by the supervising faculty member who works with the students from the start to completion of their projects.

distribution area courses and 3 courses in one designated theme of concentration). 2017: Created new minor in Practical Politics. 2018: Created new Fellows Program in cooperation with the Center for the Political Future.

Department: Political Science and International Relations Program: Political Science and International Relations (PhD)


• Individual Student screening (prior to 24 units)

• meetings with POIR Director (once per semester for all 1st and 2nd year students)

• Comprehensive Qualifying examinations taken after 24 units.

• Annual Self- Evaluations Required for all students in their 3rd year and beyond

• Methodology Boot Camp and Certificate

• POIR math “boot camp” is required for all first year students.

• For students who continue in the methods curriculum, completion of the POIR Methods Certificate

• The Ph.D. dissertation proposal defense

• Ph.D. dissertation and defense

• End of the year review conducted by POIR Director, Steering Committee, and members of the faculty who teach in the core curriculum

• DGS writes and files an evaluation memo for each student.

• Exams and papers are evaluated by faculty guidance committees.

• Graduate advisers review and append additional information for each student self-assessment

• Dissertation committee feedback on students’ dissertation proposal.

• Guidance to each student on research, methods, design, writing, and interpretation of dissertation

To determine whether the student has been successful at each stage of the program, to advance a student, to provide further guidance or to dismiss a student from the program. To evaluate the effectiveness of the program’s curriculum, faculty mentoring and professionalization efforts. To evaluate the effectiveness of the educational experience for the entire Ph.D. program.


http://dornsife.usc.edu/poir/program-learning-objectives/




208

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Department: Psychology Program:

• Psychology (BA)

• Social Sciences (Psychology) (BA)

• Cognitive Science (BA)

Yes (Based on American Psychology Association Guidelines)

Dornsife Website

• 400-level courses

• Capstone courses (in development)

• Anonymous surveys of majors and minors.

• Assessment of program’s effectiveness in career preparation, quality of instruction, overall design of major and class offerings, and opportunities in mentored research.

• Integration of students’ short- and long-term career plans.

The chair and the Director of UG studies meet and discuss survey results The UG committee discusses areas of strength and any opportunities for improvement.

Increased number of upper division courses Recommendations for programmatic or cultural changes that respond to the student survey (e.g., course offerings and course design, mentoring by faculty, career guidance). New Math requirement Increased undergraduate research offerings

Fall 2011

Department: Psychology Program: Psychology (MA)

Yes

No separate objectives from the PhD program. This is not a terminal degree. Dornsife Website PLO link




Department: Psychology Program: Psychological Science (MA) (Progressive Degree Program, currently closed)

No Program is currently closed

Program is currently closed Program is currently closed Program is currently closed






209

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Department: Psychology Program: Master of Science in Applied Psychology (MAPP) (MS) [re-named from: Human Behavior (MS)]


Internships Research paper (treatise)

Director of MAPP Department Chair

Discussed with faculty review committee and reviewed with deans.

Department: Psychology Program: Psychology (PhD)








• Job offers


To determine whether the student has been successful at each stage of the program, to advance a student, to provide further guidance or to dismiss a student from the program. Seventeen course changes

Department: Religion Program: Religion (BA)


Capstone course (REL 401) Undergraduate Studies Committee discusses progress of majors and minors with faculty and students.

Course offerings are reviewed and revised.

Spring 2013

Department: Religion Program: Interdisciplinary Archaeology (BA)


Lab work (conservation) and field work Portfolio of work reviewed by faculty

Undergraduate Review Committee: Lab Director, Lynn Dodd (REL) Interdisciplinary faculty (REL, CLAS, AHIS, ANTH)

Discussed with faculty review committee and reviewed with deans

Currently undergoing revision

Department: Religion Program:

Yes

Dornsife Website PLO link

Required courses, plus annual review Graduate Studies Committee requires two written evaluations annually: (1) one from the primary advisor

Advisors may suggest changes to course load, language work, etc.

Program is less than one year old.








https://dornsife.usc.edu/religion/learning-objectives/





210

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Religion (PhD) (2) a self-evaluation. We then hold a group interview reflecting on the year.

Department: Slavic Languages and Literatures Program: Russian (BA); Central European Studies (BA)


Undergraduate (Russian major): capstone course, SLL 465, Seminar in Russian studies.

Undergraduate (Russian major): instructor in SLL 465, for capstone course. Overall success in major determined by grades in courses (transcript).

To assess the effectiveness of graduates achieving relevant internships, graduate school admission, or employment.

Undergraduate has not been reviewed.

Department: Slavic Languages and Literature Program: Slavic Languages and Literature (PhD)





• Ph.D dissertation defense

• Student productivity as determined by conference presentations, publications

• Success in competition for external funding

• Job offers or postdoctoral fellowships.



Spring 2016

Department: Sociology Program: Sociology (BA)


Special research and internship opportunities Honor's thesis option

Faculty review committee New emphasis on Medical Sociology Assessing both quantitative and non-quantitative methods courses at mid- and high-levels

Spring 2015

Department: Spatial Sciences Institute Program: Global GeoDesign (BS)


Research and internship opportunities Capstone projects undertaken in SSCI 483, Spatial Science Practicum capstone course SSCI 412 GeoDesign Practicum

Faculty supervising research or overseeing internship work faculty who are instructors of record of program curriculum

The SSI Director of Undergraduate Studies conducts semi-annual program administration meetings and semi-

Program started Fall 2013. Internal review Spring 2016







211

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)




(4)



(5)


(6)



program

GeoDesign (BS) - Interdisciplinary with Price School of Public Policy and School of Architecture

annual faculty retreats at which all program metrics are assessed and actions are planned

Department: Spatial Sciences Institute Program: Geographic Information Science and Technology (MS) (online)


• All-faculty review of each student each semester

• Thesis juries to assess thesis proposal and readiness to undertake thesis work and defense.

• Quality and quantity of poster and paper presentations at conferences and publications

• External awards and prizes.

• Job placement and alumni tracking.

Institute leadership and faculty Semi-annual assessment of all SSI academic programs leads to action plans for implementation.

Internal review Spring 2016

Department: Spatial Sciences Institute Program: Spatial Informatics (MS) (Joint with Viterbi School of Engineering Dept. of Computer Science)


• Research and internship opportunities

• Quality and quantity of poster and paper presentations at conferences and publications

• External awards and prizes.

• Job placement and alumni tracking.

SSI program directors with VSOE program directors and faculty

Semi-annual assessment of all SSI academic programs leads to action plans for implementation.

Program started Fall 2015

Department: Spatial Sciences Institute Program: Population, Health and Place (PhD) (Interdisciplinary with Dept. of Sociology and Keck School of Medicine Dept. of Preventive Health)

New program; being developed

Dornsife Website PLO link

• Screening examinations

• Comprehensive Qualifying examinations • Ph.D. dissertation proposal

• Ph.D. dissertation defense.

• Quality and quantity of presentations, publications


• Prizes and awards

• Job offers and placement

Faculty program committee and faculty who are instructors of record of program curriculum

Semi-annual assessment of all SSI academic programs leads to action plans for implementation.

First cohort to start Fall 2016








https://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/1/docs/PhD_Learning_Objectives_Social_Sciences.pdf

https://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/1/docs/PhD_Learning_Objectives_Social_Sciences.pdf

USC Keck School of Medicine

212

Program (1)

Have formal learning outcomes been developed?

(2)


(Please specify)

(3)

Other than GPA, what data/evidence is used to determine that graduates have achieved stated outcomes for the degree? (e.g., capstone course, portfolio review, licensure examination)

(4)



(5)


(6)

Date of last program review for this degree program

Department: Preventive Medicine Program: Global Health (B.S.)

Yes Learning outcomes are published on the Keck Undergraduate Program website and in the course syllabi provided to the students at the beginning of each term. PLO link

Students are required to complete a capstone research course that puts into practice the statistical, theoretical, and practical knowledge in the context of faculty-led research activities. Final student presentations are then delivered to appraise the research outcomes achieved. Students’ consistent admission to medical, dental, pharmacy, and health professional schools suggests undergraduate programming that supports attainment of these education goals.

Evidence is interpreted by the student’s faculty research advisor and by faculty selected to interpret the evidence of all student research activity. Expectations are set by the faculty research advisor. Students then present evidence periodically to demonstrate satisfactory research progress, which is compiled in the final student poster presentation. Students are encouraged to submit their work to the USC undergraduate research symposium and continue to gain research experience.

Evidence is used for mandatory academic advisement, advisement by faculty to remedy students falling behind, and to partner exceptional students with specific faculty research.

The University Committee on Curriculum reviewed the program in 2008.

Department: Preventive Medicine Program: Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Studies (B.S.)

Yes Learning outcomes are published on the Keck Undergraduate Program website, on the program website, in publicity materials mailed to prospective students, and in course syllabi distributed at the beginning of each semester. PLO link

Students are required to complete a capstone research course that puts into practice the statistical, theoretical, and practical knowledge in the context of faculty-led research activities. Final student presentations are then delivered to appraise the research outcomes achieved.

Evidence is interpreted by the student’s faculty research advisor and by faculty selected to interpret the evidence of all student research activity. Expectations are set by the faculty research advisor. Students then present evidence periodically to demonstrate satisfactory research progress, which is compiled in the final student poster presentation. Students are encouraged to submit their work to the USC undergraduate research symposium and continue to gain research experience.

Evidence is used for mandatory academic advisement, advisement by faculty to remedy students falling behind, and to partner exceptional students with specific faculty research.

The University Committee on Curriculum reviewed the program in 2008.

https://keck.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/BS_Global-Health_PLOs.pdf

https://keck.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/BS_Health-Promotion-Disease-Prevention-Studies_PLOs.pdf


213

Program (1)


(2)


(Please specify)

(3)


(4)



(5)


(6)


Department: Academic Medicine Program: Academic Medicine (M.A.C.M.)

Yes25 The overall goals are included in all publicizing flyers and brochures– individual course objectives are coordinated with these five central goals and are published in the course syllabi for each course. Learning outcomes are also published on the Keck Master’s Programs website. PLO link

Every single element of each of the nine objectives is tied to at least one course-based product. Thus, every course has products that can be reviewed. For example, ACMD 501 has an end of course portfolio that is submitted. In addition, all students produce abstracts of their innovation proposals that are submitted for review by external reviewers as part of the USC Innovations in Medical Education Conference.

As part of the capstone course, ACMD 621, learners also review all major assignments as discussed if and how it has been utilized or incorporated into their work setting.

Course products are reviewed by the course instructors for adequacy and points are assigned based on agreed upon criteria. All grades are based on percentage of points earned in each course. Most students in the MACM program are faculty in other medical schools or academic health centers, so learners also provide feedback to each other. In relation to overall performance in the MACM program, we require completion of all assigned products (which have met a mastery level) to support their work in the capstone course. We also have a written portfolio of their work in the program – with criteria that all objectives must be addressed in one of their entries. Portfolio development is guided to help ensure that each portfolio meets the published requirements.

Students produce more than a dozen book reflections and more than a dozen key projects. There is a lot of evidence of achievement.

Findings are used to advise students and if necessary, to work with them to re-submit the same project (or a different project, under the guidance of a faculty member) until project criteria are met.

If learners struggle with a project, the faculty work to enhance the worksheet or instructions as part of our continuous quality improvement

Spring 2007, formal USC approval of the program July 2009 WASC review and approval with suggestion for adding a capstone, which was then added, first using 598, then 621 once the course was approved.

Department: Preventive Medicine Programs: Applied Biostatistics and

Yes Learning outcomes are published on the Keck Master’s Programs website and the program description is mailed to potential applicants on request.

Data/evidence used to determine that students are making satisfactory progress while they are enrolled is: Maintenance of a minimum GPA of 3.0. Approval of course selections and monitoring of academic performance by the program director.

The program director and MS thesis guidance committee interpret this evidence.

Findings are used to provide early feedback to any student who is not fulfilling stated program goals and standards. Feedback may be from the MS program director, the

Program was reviewed in-house by Program Co-Directors and MS Degree program faculty in 2016.

25 Outcomes developed as part of the original program and updated in Spring of 2009 as part of the separate WASC accreditation for the program.

https://keck.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Master-of-Academic-Medicine-MACM_PLOs.pdf


214

Program (1)


(2)


(Please specify)

(3)


(4)



(5)


(6)


Epidemiology (M.S.)

PLO link

Successful conduct of a research project including submission of a thesis that meets professional standards of the guidance committee and the university.

vice chair for education, and/or the student’s guidance committee.

Department: Biochemistry and Molecular Medicine Program: Biochemistry and Molecular Medicine (M.S.)

Yes Learning objectives are published on the Keck Master’s Programs website. Each course has learning objectives included in the course syllabi. PLO link

Student must perform active research in the laboratory of a primary or secondary BMM faculty member beginning in Year 1.

Student must form a thesis committee in Year 1 consisting of PI and at least 2 other faculty members.

Student must prepare and present their Master’s Research Appraisal (MRA) to thesis committee beginning Year 2. The MRA is a detailed outline of the student’s thesis research project.

Student must write, submit and defend the research thesis to the thesis committee by the end of Year 2.

Student GPA is monitored constantly by BMM administration to ensure minimal 3.0 GPA.

Thesis committee evaluates and modifies, if necessary, the student’s MRA. These recommendations are forwarded for the Director’s approval.

Director evaluates student’s MRA and thesis committee recommendations.

Thesis committee determines whether the student successfully defends the thesis.

If the student’s GPA drops below 3.0 at any time, the student receives a warning letter from the Program Director along with a plan to improve performance. To date, no student has been dismissed from the Program based on poor GPA.

Director evaluation of student’s MRA and thesis committee recommendations ensures that the research project is clearly stated, reasonable and can be completed prior to the graduation deadline. In rare instances, the Director will intervene with the student and PI to satisfy these criteria.

Didactic instruction in the Program was completely revamped and a new course curriculum implemented in 2018 requiring students to complete four new courses in the first year. Program will undergo a complete UCAR review in 2020.

https://keck.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/MS_Applied-Biostatistics-and-Epidemiology-_PLOs.pdf

https://keck.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/MS_Biochemistry-Molecular-Medicine_PLOs.pdf


215

Program (1)


(2)


(Please specify)

(3)


(4)



(5)


(6)


Department: Preventive Medicine Program: Biostatistics (M.S.)

Yes Learning outcomes are published on the Keck Master’s Programs website and the program description is mailed to potential applicants on request. Formal learning objectives are defined and published within the program’s descriptive document, and departmental website on graduate programs PLO link

Data/evidence used to determine that students are making satisfactory progress while they are enrolled is: • Maintenance of a minimum GPA of

3.0. • Approval of course selections and

monitoring of academic performance by the program director.

• Successful conduct of a research project including submission of a thesis that meets professional standards of the guidance committee and the university.

The program director and MS thesis guidance committee interpret this evidence.

Findings are used to provide early feedback to any student who is not fulfilling stated program goals and standards. Feedback may be from the MS program director (Meredith Franklin), the vice chair for education (Richard Watanabe), and/or the student’s guidance committee.

Program was reviewed in-house by Porgram co-Directors and MS degree program faculty in 2016.

Department: Preventive Medicine Program: Clinical, Biomedical and Translational Investigations (M.S.)

Yes Learning outcomes are published on the Keck Master’s Programs website and the program description is emailed to potential applicants on request. PLO link

Data/evidence used to determine that students are making satisfactory progress while they are enrolled is: • Maintenance of a minimum GPA of

3.0 • Approval of research plans by the

three-member thesis committee that includes the Research Mentor • Approval and monitoring by the

Program Director and staff • Successful conduct of a research

project including submission of a thesis that meets professional standards of the thesis committee and the university

Interpretation of evidence of satisfactory progress is described in the cell to the left.

Findings are used to provide early feedback to any student who is not fulfilling stated program goals and standards. Feedback may be from the Program Director and/or the student’s thesis committee.

Program Co-Directors and MS Degree Program Manager conducted an in-house review in January 2010. .

https://keck.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/MS_Biostatistics_PLOs.pdf

https://keck.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/MS_Clinical-Biomedical-Translational-Investigations_PLOs.pdf


216

Program (1)


(2)


(Please specify)

(3)


(4)



(5)


(6)


Department: Pathology Program: Experimental and Molecular Pathology (M.S.)

Yes Learning outcomes are published on the Keck Master’s Programs website. PLO link

Passing of written and oral qualifying exam, successful dissertation defense.

Students in the MS program must complete either an experiment-based thesis or a theory-based thesis.

Students work with their mentor on a project to do a presentation in local or national meeting, to publish papers in journals.

Placement of job or admission to advanced professional school (M.D. or Ph.D.)

Each student’s mentor and his/her thesis committee carefully reviews the student’s experiment- or theory-based thesis. Three faculty members are required for experiment- based thesis. The student’s work is evaluated by the student’s thesis committee to determine if the student has successfully achieved the program’s learning outcomes.

If all requirements are fulfilled, the student earns a Master’s degree.

The student’s thesis mentor and graduate committee use the performance information to evaluate the student’s progress and counsel the student if improvement is necessary.

If the student’s GPA goes below 3.0 at any time, the student receives a warning letter from the Vice Chair of Education, along with a plan to improve performance. If the student is not above a 3.0 GPA the semester after the warning, the student is dismissed from the program.

Review by Pathology Graduate Committee: July 2019

Department: Preventive Medicine Program: Global Medicine (M.S.)

Yes Learning outcomes are also published on the Keck Master’s Programs website, and in promotional materials we use to disseminate information to prospective students. Individual course

The curriculum requires students to conduct extensive literature searches on global health issues and to develop and deliver presentations to classmates across the program. Students must produce research papers as part of course work. Students are encouraged to submit presentations and papers to conferences related to global health,

Throughout the semester, faculty evaluate student work and their development of knowledge by students’ capacity to integrate concepts and information in new and complex ways and articulate that information effectively.

Professors use evaluations of student work throughout the semester to inform their feedback on student work and to adjust teaching, should areas of need become apparent. Professors

Spring 2020 – currently undergoing review by UCAR

https://keck.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/MS_Experimental-Molecular-Pathology_PLOs.pdf


217

Program (1)


(2)


(Please specify)

(3)


(4)



(5)


(6)


learning objectives are also published in the catalogue as well as in course syllabi provided to students at the beginning of each term. PLO link

medicine, and international affairs. Students are required to attend workshops to enhance understanding of cultural competence and professionalism. Students must participate in the Global Citizenship Roundtables sponsored by the program that serve as symposia for student presentations about their experiences abroad learning about health and healthcare. Team communication and leadership skills are developed as part of the program.

Student and alumni success in securing invitations to present at conferences, fellowships, and grants, including the Dhablania and Kim Family Global Medicine fellowship, serve as strong indicators that students can apply knowledge gained in the program in respected academic and research contexts.

The program director and faculty participate in Global Citizenship Roundtables and observe students’ participation and presentation skills at these symposia.

serve as mentors to students and recommend and encourage students to develop work for conference and publication submissions. Program faculty and the program director consult on student work on ad-hoc basis to review evidence of student learning and implications for pedagogy and curriculum.

Department: Integrated Anatomical Sciences Program: Integrated Anatomical Sciences (M.S.)


In addition to traditional evidence of achieving learning outcomes such as GPA, IAS MS students are required to present original teaching materials to the IAS faculty. These presentations take the form of prosections, PowerPoint-guided teaching demonstrations, or brief lectures on an advanced anatomical topic.

IAS Faculty evaluate each MS student throughout the academic year. Teaching presentations, prosections, and demonstrations are evaluated by program faculty at least once a semester. In addition, each student is assigned a faculty mentor who guides the student through the program and serves as a first stop for monitoring academic progress.

Students receive feedback on their teaching presentations from the Teaching Practicum Course Director and/or from individual IAS faculty. To assess appropriate academic progress, a combination of GPA and teaching presentations are used. If students

Last reviewed by the University Committee for Curriculum (UCOC) in 2016

https://keck.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/MS_Global-Medicine_PLOs.pdf

https://keck.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/MS_Integrative-Anatomical-Sciences_PLOs.pdf


218

Program (1)


(2)


(Please specify)

(3)


(4)



(5)


(6)


have an unacceptably low GPA early in the academic year, remedial measures are enacted the following semester, such as enrolling in electives designed to increase anatomical knowledge.

Department: Molecular Physiology and Neuroscience Program: Medical Physiology (M.S.)

Yes Formal learning outcomes are published on the Keck Master’s Programs website. Course requirements and the process for completing and defending the capstone requirement are published in the USC Catalogue and posted online. Learning outcomes for each course are defined by objectives in the syllabus for the course and are provided to students on paper or posted online. PLO link

For thesis track students: Final acceptance of a thesis document and passage of the oral examination by the unanimous recommendation of all members of the thesis committee according the process stated in the University Catalog.

For non-thesis track students: A comprehensive examination on a topic approved by the Examination Supervisor and consists of: 1) a document sufficiently discussing the topic and 2) passing an oral examination on the substance of the topic according the process stated in the University Catalog.

Process in University Catalog: https://catalogue.usc.edu/preview_program.php?catoid=11&poid=11015&returnto=3756

The process can be obtained from the catalog: https://catalogue.usc.edu/preview_program.php?catoid=11&poid=11015&returnto=3756

The findings are used to determine whether the student passed the Final Examination

Approved by UCOC in 2015

https://keck.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/MS_Medical-Physiology_PLOs.pdf








219

Program (1)


(2)


(Please specify)

(3)


(4)



(5)


(6)


Department: Preventive Medicine Program: Molecular Epidemiology (M.S.)

Yes Learning outcomes are published on the Keck Master’s Programs website and the program description is mailed to potential applicants on request. Formal learning objectives are defined and published within the program’s descriptive document; and departmental website on graduate programs PLO link

Data/evidence used to determine that students are making satisfactory progress while they are enrolled is:

• Maintenance of a minimum GPA of 3.0

• Approval of research plans by the Program Director

• Approval and monitoring by the student’s guidance committee,

• Successful conduct of an independent research project including submission of a final project thesis that meets professional standards of the guidance committee and the university and comparable to a scientific research paper.

Interpretation of evidence of satisfactory progress is described in cell #3 to the left.

Findings are used to provide early feedback to any student who is not fulfilling stated program goals and standards. Feedback may be from the MS Program Director, and/or the student’s guidance committee. Program Director monitors the student’s progress and meets with students once per semester to monitor progress.

Approved by the University Committee on Curriculum in 2015. The main goals of this review were to update the core and elective courses.

Department: Molecular Microbiology and Immunology Program: Molecular Microbiology and Immunology (M.S.)

Yes Learning outcomes are published on the Keck Master’s Programs website. Individual courses, some of which are required parts of this Program, list learning outcomes in their syllabi. Expected outcomes are also listed in the USC University catalog PLO link

M. S. Program chair reviews the thesis and coursework of degree candidates for completion of degree requirements. In addition, thesis M. S. candidates are reviewed by their respective thesis faculty committee for approval of the thesis document.

-Curriculum review by Program Director and by Guidance and Advisory Committee -Thesis completion and presentation to Thesis Committee.

Student performance is monitored by M.S. Program Guidance and Advisory Committee as quality control indicators for admission standards and to adjust the curriculum and training program as a function of time.

Last review was 2004. The M. S. Program was reviewed as part of external and internal reviews. The MM&I Department was internally reviewed in a self-assessment in 2003 and was externally reviewed in 2004 by USC and an external committee prior to recruiting and appointing a new Chairman.

https://keck.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/MS_Molecular-Epidemiology_PLOs.pdf

https://keck.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/MS_Molecular-Microbiology-Immunology_PLOs.pdf


220

Program (1)


(2)


(Please specify)

(3)


(4)



(5)


(6)


Department: Medical Education Program: Narrative Medicine (M.S.)


Students are required to write papers in all core courses and many electives. Presentations are also required in most courses. Students’ complete required practicum teaching activities, as well as an applied writing portfolio. Finally, the capstone project, thesis, or clinical practicum demonstrates the student’s summative experience in the program, and involves completion of an original research project, an independently written thesis, a creative capstone project, or a clinical practicum.

Throughout the program, the students’ professors interpret the evidence of all students’ presentations, papers, portfolios, student teaching activities, and research papers in all courses. The judgment as to whether the student has satisfied the Capstone requirement is made by a committee consisting of the Capstone faculty advisors and the Program Directors.

The findings are used to advise students on their degree progress, and to assist them in satisfying their degree requirements. Any necessary remediation procedure is tailored to the student’s needs in consultation with course or supervising faculty and the Program Directors.

The new MS in Narrative Medicine was approved by the Health Promotions Subcommittee (HPS), and by the University Committee on Curriculum (UCOC) in 2019. The program will begin in Fall 2020. Ongoing and annual review of the program will be done by Program Directors and by the Department of Medical Education.

Department: USC Stevens Neuroimaging and Informatics Institute Program: Neuroimaging and Informatics (M.S.)


Each student is assigned a NIIN faculty mentor when they join the program. The faculty mentors meet with the students at least once per term to discuss progress of the student, any issues that arise, and any feedback the students have for our program. The program director is also in regular contact with the students and frequently meets with them to answer questions related to the program and their career development. We also use term-end course evaluations to determine whether students believe that they have learned the skills intended in their classes.

At NIIN faculty meetings, the NIIN director and all NIIN faculty discuss any students who are not progressing properly in one or more classes.

NIIN faculty mentors present any program feedback their mentees have shared with them.

After each term, the NIIN director compiles relevant information from course evaluations – particularly focusing on items that appear multiple times on a single course evaluation or for multiple classes. These aggregated points to improve on are shared verbally and in writing with NIIN faculty.

If a student is struggling in a class, the course instructor and program director discuss what may be the issue and create a remediation plan that may involve (for instance) additional time explaining concepts to the students or additional practice sets.

Course and program feedback are used to improve the program in subsequent years.

2016 by the University Committee on Curriculum

https://keck.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/MS_Narrative-Medicine_PLOs.pdf

https://keck.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/MS_Neuroimaging-Informatics-_PLOs.pdf


221

Program (1)


(2)


(Please specify)

(3)


(4)



(5)


(6)


Department: Family Medicine Program: Physician Assistant Practice (M.P.A.P.)

Yes7 Learning outcomes are published on the Keck PA Program and the Keck Professional Degrees Program website. The program’s learning objectives and outcomes are published in the student course syllabi and the objectives are in the student handbook. PLO link

Students take a comprehensive summative examination that includes 6 objective skill clinical examinations with interstation exercises tied to program defined competencies. Final projects include community based public health education and another 250 hours of clinical practice experience. Students are not eligible to take a licensure examination until 1 week after graduation.

The Course Director reviews and grades all assignments. Students who are more than two standard deviations below the norms are guided on study areas to improve their scores. Program faculty, in conjunction with ARC-PA accreditation self-study processes, review all data annually at retreats and throughout the year in accreditation and curriculum committee meetings. Data is discussed, changes are proposed where appropriate and additional studies are implemented to review changes.

The findings are used for self-study and program improvement to strengthen possible areas of deficiencies. Changes are tracked and new data is collected to confirm changes made created the appropriate outcomes.

December 2019 – 10 years awarded; Next accreditation review is June 2029.

Department: Preventive Medicine Program: Public Health (M.P.H.) (Available in On-campus and Online formats)

Yes

The MPH program has 12 foundational knowledge objectives and 22 foundational competencies that serve as the learning outcomes. These are published on the Keck Master’s Programs website. From this list of objectives and competencies for the entire program, specific objectives and competencies that are

Consistent with criteria for accreditation from the Council on Education for Public Health, we have developed an assessment tool to determine whether students have achieved each of the 22 MPH competencies. Across the MPH foundational courses, these assessments include exams, individual and group assignments, the final paper and poster in the Public Health Capstone (PM 597), and deliverables in the Public Health Practicum course (PM 596).

GPA is monitored by the MPH Program Director and Student Affairs staff. Competency attainment is assessed within each of the six foundational courses by instructors for those courses. The instructors provide a grade for the individual assessments and the entire course. When applicable, students are advised to focus on competency deficiencies in their Practicum and Capstone projects. Attainment of additional program objectives is measured through data

Data on program outcomes are reviewed by the MPH Steering Committee, comprised of lead MPH faculty.

Data on program outcomes are reported to the Council on Education for Public Health annually as part of the annual review process.

The Council on Education for Program Health reviewed the program in 2015. Accreditation for 7 years was awarded in November 2015. Within USC, the University Committee on Academic Review reviewed the program in January 2020. The committee reported the program “met expectations”

https://keck.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/USC-PA-Program-Competencies.pdf


222

Program (1)


(2)


(Please specify)

(3)


(4)



(5)


(6)


addressed in specific MPH courses are listed in the syllabi for those courses. PLO link

on time to graduation, job placement rates, and course learning experience evaluations.

Department: Preventive Medicine Program: Public Health Data Science (M.S.)

Yes

Learning outcomes are published on the Keck Master’s Programs website. PLO link

-Maintaining a 3.0 GPA

-Successful completion of a capstone practicum

-Complete the program’s core curriculum

The Program director will advise all students

Findings are used to provide early feedback to any student who is not fulfilling stated program goals and standards. Feedback may be from the MS program director and the vice chair for education, and/or the student’s guidance committee

Program approved summer 2019 by university curriculum review and will be offered starting in fall 2020

Department: Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine Program: Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine (M.S.)

Yes Learning outcomes are published on the Keck Master’s Programs website, on the program’s website, in the promotional brochure, and on individual syllabi for the courses comprising our degree program.

PLO link

In addition to maintaining a GPA of 3.0 or greater, our students are required to create and deliver several individual and group project presentations during the course of the program. For our two laboratory modules, students must demonstrate competency of the required skills.

The presentations and laboratory technique competencies are evaluated by the departmental faculty members assigned to teach each course.

Findings are used to advise students to improve progress towards satisfying the requirements for the degree and are considered by the faculty to improve instructional methods and revise curriculum. The findings are also applied in recruiting and admissions to better select applicants who are fully prepared to succeed in the program.

The program was developed and launched in 2014. The program underwent a full curriculum review at that time.

https://keck.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Master-of-Public-Health-M.P.H._PLOs.pdf

https://keck.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/MS_Public-Health-Data-Science_PLOs.pdf

https://keck.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/MS_Stem-Cell-Biology-and-Regenerative-Medicine_PLOs.pdf


223

Program (1)


(2)


(Please specify)

(3)


(4)



(5)


(6)


Department: Translational Genomics Program: Translational Biomedical Informatics (M.S.)


Capstone projects reviewed by mentorship team, including Program Director and Primary Mentor. Capstone projects must demonstrate the following characteristics: Initial plan proposal to be shared via an agreed plan, though recommended through private Github instance. This occurs at least six months prior to the capstone review. The end biomedical informatic goal is: 1. Daily commits through the course of

the project showing frequency of changes, requests for feedbacks, and response to critiques.

2. At least one meeting with Program director, mentor, and student should occur approximately at half point and no more than 3/4ths point to assess process of milestones.

3. Review of milestones and completion of proposed work

4. Review of impact of capstone project is obtained working with mentor and includes (1) Use of production environments, such as a core; User stats may be obtained (2) Publications in peer-reviewed journals; (3) Presentation of work in journals.

Programmatically, the process is reviewed by the program directors within the Department (Dr. Craig, Dr. Carol Lin) and the department chair (Dr. John Carpten). In addition, outside biomedical and statistical advisors will review for input requirements For each student, assessments are made by determining whether the initial objectives were revised or met (specified in Github); the frequency of updates by the students to their Github tracking; whether the goals are being met at the half-way point; and whether the goals met at the end point.

Findings will be used to inform revisions to program measurables and processes at approximately 6-month intervals. Findings will be used to assess course offerings and course electives that may be used outside department.

Approved in May 2017 by the University Committee on Curriculum

Department: Translational Genomics Program:

Yes Learning outcomes are published on the Keck Master’s Programs website. Learning objectives for each course are listed in

All courses require a formal term paper and/or a formal oral presentation supplemented by visual aids. Students build their portfolios, which are reviewed at regular intervals to

Course portfolios are reviewed by course professors for adequacy and assigning of points (grades are based on those points).

Findings are used to advise students for revisions or resubmission, if necessary, for project assignments.

This program was reviewed and approved by the University Committee on Curriculum in May 2017.

https://keck.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/MS_Translational-Biomedical-Informatics_PLOs.pdf


224

Program (1)


(2)


(Please specify)

(3)


(4)



(5)


(6)


Translational Biotechnology (M.S.)

syllabi, which are available and are widely publicized before each registration period. PLO link

assess their fulfillment of core competencies. Students are required to complete a capstone project. Presentation of the project is a public event attended by faculty members and students.

Portfolios are examined by the program director and other faculty members and are also peer-evaluated. Capstone presentation is evaluated by the program director and faculty members. Students develop an IDP (Independent Development Plan) and meet with the program director regularly.

Findings are also used as the basis for advisement in course selections and career preparation.

Department: Anesthesiology Program: Doctoral Program in Nurse Anesthesia (DNAP.)

Yes Learning outcomes are published on the Keck Professional Degrees Programs website. Formal learning outcomes have been developed and are published (and updated) in the Student Handbook and distributed to the students every year. PLO link

• Completion of all clinical cases and practice hours as stipulated by the COA26 and NBCRNA27

• Successful completion of all program courses

• Two Self-Evaluation Examination (SEE)28 with program-established minimum benchmark scores; SEE is administered by the NBCRNA29

• An evidence-based capstone scholarly project with manuscript submitted to the Norris Library

• Completion of Comprehensive Clinical Oral Boards in the final clinical semester

• Completion of all 15 terminal objectives (published in handbook)

The program administration (Program Directors and Assistant Program Directors) evaluate all academic and clinical coursework every semester for compliance with university and COA1 doctoral education standards. Academic and clinical advisement occurs twice each semester to review progress; more frequently as needed. Clinical instructors complete formative evaluations, and program faculty observe the students’ clinical progress on a monthly basis.

The program tracks and documents students’ GPA SEE3 scores, comprehensive examination results, and emotional intelligence (EI) scores to identify student progress. The program advises and counsels students twice every semester (more often as needed). Faculty review student didactic and clinical performance to maintain program progression. In collaboration with a

May 2019; accreditation was granted through May 2023 The Curriculum and Evaluation Committee reviews all program-learning objectives each semester and updates them annually. The program transitioned to the Doctor of Nurse Anesthesia Practice (DNAP) degree in 2017; the master’s program was retired in 2018

26 Council on Accreditation of Nurse Anesthesia Educational Program (COA) –https://www.coacrna.org/ 27 National Board of Certification and Recertification of Nurse Anesthetists (NBCRNA) https://www.nbcrna.com/ 28 Self-Evaluation Examination (SEE) administered by NBCRNA 29 National Certification Examination (NCE) administered by NBCRNA

https://keck.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/MS_Translational-Biotechnology_PLOs.pdf

https://keck.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Nurse-Anesthesia-Doctoral-Program_PLOs.pdf


225

Program (1)


(2)


(Please specify)

(3)


(4)



(5)


(6)


• Initial certification exam (National Certifying Exam [(NCE])4 completed within 4 months of graduation.

The program administration completes a summative evaluation at the completion of every clinical semester. This process provides an opportunity to ensure antegrade progression within the program and address specific learning needs before advancing to the next semester or graduation

faculty advisor, students develop a strategic plan for their comprehensive study in anticipation of the SEE (taken twice) and NCE4 (taken after program graduation). The program remediates students who do not achieve program-established benchmarks. The remediation plan may require temporary relief of clinical duties.

Department: Preventive Medicine Program: Biostatistics (Ph.D.)


In-class applied and theory screening exams offered in June A written research proposal and oral presentation evaluated by the student’s Qualifying Exam committee A written dissertation and an oral presentation describing the completed research project that meets professional standards of the Dissertation Committee and the university.

•A faculty committee reviews the screening exam and determines Pass/Fail/Conditional Pass. The conditions for a Conditional Pass are developed and approved by the screening exam committee, student's mentor, PhD Program Director, and Preventive Medicine Vice Chair of Education. Feedback on the screening exam is in a letter from the Chair of the Screening Exam Committee to the student with a copy to the PhD Program Director. •A Mentoring Committee evaluates the student’s progress on an annual basis and reports its findings to the student and PhD Program Director. •The student's Qualifying Exam Committee evaluates the student's research plans based on a written proposal and oral presentation.

Findings are used to provide early feedback to any student who is not fulfilling stated program goals and standards. The GPA is used to provide students early feedback on their fulfilling stated standards of the program. The screening exam is also used to give students information on achieving program standards. A student that does not pass the screening exam after a second year in the program is dismissed. Students requiring extra help are identified and

2016

https://keck.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/PhD_Biostatistics_PLOs.pdf


226

Program (1)


(2)


(Please specify)

(3)


(4)



(5)


(6)


•The student's Dissertation Committee evaluates the students' completion of their research project through their written dissertation and oral presentation.

given additional counseling on available resources for improving their skills.

Department: Integrated Basic Sciences (No one department) Program: Cancer Biology and Genomics (Ph.D.)

Yes Learning outcomes are published on the Keck Ph.D. Programs website. PLO link

Qualifying exam – Federal (NIH) F31 grant proposal Individual Development Plan (IDP) submitted annually is reviewed by the faculty mentor. Annual Research Appraisal (ARA) by faculty committee leading up to thesis defense. Completion and defense of dissertation.

Qualifying exam and Advancement to candidacy is approved by the faculty committee. Faculty mentor reviews IDP to assist students in developing research plan. ARAs and Dissertation. The dissertation committee evaluates the dissertation progress and final thesis.

Students who do not pass the two-stage qualifying exam are allowed an opportunity resubmit/retake portions of the exam. The IDP and ARA findings are used to provide students and mentors with regular feedback on the progress towards degree completion. IDP and ARAs are filed and used to monitor student progress.

Program originally approved by UCOC in December 2013.

Department: Integrated Basic Sciences (No one department) Program: Development, Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine (Ph.D.)


Qualifying exam – Federal (NIH) F31 grant proposal Individual Development Plan (IDP) submitted annually is reviewed by the faculty mentor. Annual Research Appraisal (ARA) by faculty committee leading up to thesis defense. Completion and defense of dissertation.

Qualifying exam and advancement to candidacy is approved by the faculty committee. Faculty mentor reviews IDP to assist students in developing research plan. ARAs and Dissertation. The dissertation committee evaluates the dissertation progress and final thesis.

Students who do not pass the two-stage qualifying exam are allowed an opportunity to resubmit/retake portions of the exam. The IDP and ARA findings are used to provide students and mentors with regular feedback on the

Approved by University Committee on Curriculum in 2014

http://keck.usc.edu/pibbs/wp-content/uploads/sites/214/2017/01/PROGRAM-LEARNING-OBJECTIVES-CBG.pdf

https://keck.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/PhD_Developmental-Stem-Cell-Regenerative-Medicine_PLOs.pdf


227

Program (1)


(2)


(Please specify)

(3)


(4)



(5)


(6)


progress towards degree completion. IDP and ARAs are filed and used to monitor student progress.

Department: Preventive Medicine Program: Epidemiology (Ph.D.)


Data/evidence used to determine that students are making satisfactory progress while they are enrolled is: 1. Maintenance of a minimum GPA of

3.0 2. Approval of research plans by the

Program Director 3. Approval and monitoring by the

student’s guidance committee: Successful conduct of an independent research project including submission of a final project thesis that meets professional standards of the guidance committee and the university and comparable to a scientific research paper

Interpretation of evidence of satisfactory progress is described in cell #3 to the left.

Findings are used to provide early feedback to any student who is not fulfilling stated program goals and standards. Feedback may be from the MS Program Director, and/or the student’s guidance committee. Program Director monitors the student’s progress and meets with students once per semester to monitor progress.

Approved by the university Committee on Curriculum in 2015. The main goals of this review were to update the core and elective courses.

Department: Preventive Medicine Program: Health Behavior Research (Ph.D.)


Annual review of student’s progress, 2nd year review in which the student presents empirical results, written qualifying exam, oral qualifying exam, dissertation defense.

Student convenes a guidance committee consisting of 5 faculty. After all coursework is completed, student assembles a dossier containing the dissertation proposal, empirical paper, and CV. Guidance committee members each submit two written essay questions based on the dossier.

If all requirements are fulfilled, the student earns a Ph.D.

The student’s academic advisor, program director, and Vice Chair of education use the performance information to evaluate the student’s progress and counsel the student

We did a partial review in 2016 and will do a complete UCAR review in 2020.

https://keck.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Epidemiology-PhD.pdf

https://keck.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/PhD_Health-Behavior-research_PLOs.pdf


228

Program (1)


(2)


(Please specify)

(3)


(4)



(5)


(6)


Student has 5 days to respond to the questions in writing. Committee meets to review the written responses and the dissertation proposal. If the written responses and dissertation proposal are acceptable, the student advances to candidacy. Student writes a dissertation, usually consisting of three publishable empirical papers plus introduction and discussion. Student defends the dissertation. The committee determines whether the student passes the defense.

if improvement is necessary.

If the student’s GPA goes below 3.0 at any time, the student receives a warning letter from the Vice Chair of Education, along with a plan to improve performance.

If the student is not above a 3.0 GPA the semester after the warning, the student is dismissed from the program.

Students who fail the written qualifying exam can repeat it once.

Students who fail the dissertation defense can repeat it once.

Department: Integrated Basic Sciences (No one department) Program: Infectious Diseases, Immunology and


Qualifying exam – Federal (NIH) F31 grant proposal Individual Development Plan (IDP) submitted annually is reviewed by the faculty mentor. Annual Research Appraisal (ARA) by faculty committee leading up to thesis defense.

Qualifying exam and Advancement to candidacy is approved by the faculty committee. Faculty mentor reviews IDP to assist students in developing research plan. ARAs and Dissertation. The dissertation committee evaluates the dissertation progress and final thesis.

Students who do not pass the two-stage qualifying exam are allowed an opportunity resubmit/retake portions of the exam. The IDP and ARA findings are used to provide students and

Program originally approved by UCOC as Medical Biology in December 2013. Name change to IDIP approved administratively in January 2019.

https://keck.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/PhD_Infectious-Diseases-Immunology-Pathogenesis_PLOs.pdf


229

Program (1)


(2)


(Please specify)

(3)


(4)



(5)


(6)


Pathogenesis (Ph.D.)

Completion and defense of dissertation.

mentors with regular feedback on the progress towards degree completion. IDP and ARAs are filed and used to monitor student progress.

Department: Integrated Basic Sciences (No one department) Program: Medical Biophysics (MBPH)


Qualifying exam written in form of a F31 application. Research appraisal meetings with committee every year after passing the qualifying exam Written PhD thesis and defense

Written qualifying exam is reviewed by two reviewers, and discussed and scored by a mock study section. Oral qualifying exam is evaluated by a separate qualifying exam committee. Annual research appraisal and final written and oral PhD defense is judged by the PhD committee

Evidence is used to by: - QE committee: to decide whether or not the student passes qualifying exam. Students that do not pass the qualifying exam have to leave the program. - Thesis committee: to recommend changes in research focus. Decide whether or not student is ready to prepare written PhD thesis and oral PhD defense. - Thesis committee: To -determine whether the student passes oral PhD exam and whether the thesis is sufficient for obtaining the degree.

The program was reviewed initially in 2016 by the University Committee on Curriculum.

https://keck.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/PhD_Medical-Biophysics_PLOs.pdf


230

Program (1)


(2)


(Please specify)

(3)


(4)



(5)


(6)


Department: Integrated Basic Sciences (No one department) Program: PIBBS (Gateway – no degree)


Instructional faculty provide mid-semester review to the Program Office. Rotation faculty provide an evaluation. Students receive three faculty evaluations on their performance during the rotation during the year

Program office and Director Program office employs systematic process of acquiring feedback from instructors and rotation faculty. All feedback is reviewed to identify at-risk students.

Student performance is monitored by Program office and Program Director. Quality control for admissions standards and for adjustments to curriculum and training program. Intervention strategies are employed to address at-risk students that include provision of tutor or supplementary instructional material. Instructional faculty use information to adjust curriculum and training as needed.

The last program review was conducted in January 2012.

School: Keck School of Medicine Program: Medicine (M.D.)

Yes Learning outcomes are published on the Keck Professional Degree Programs website. PLO link

Data used to determine that graduates have achieved stated outcomes for the degree include:

• Metrics for Meeting Program Objectives

• End of Course exams

• NBME standardized exams

• Supervisor evaluations • USMLE Step I

• USMLE Step II CK and Step II CS

• Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs)

• Clinical Performance Exam (CPX)

• Peer Evaluations

• Scholarly Project

Monitoring/Interpreting of Program Outcomes

• Medical Education Curriculum Committee (MECC)

• Years I-II Subcommittee

• Years III-IV Subcommittee

• Department of Medical Education Faculty

• Exam Development and Administration Committee

• Student Performance Committee (SPC)

• Course Chairs

• Clerkship Directors

1. The SPC monitors individual student performance with oversight by the associate dean for student affairs regarding promotion considerations and the provision of academic support. 2. Formal reviews regarding the achievement of the stated degree outcomes are performed annually

November 2017, LCME1 accreditation full survey visit: achieved the full 8-year accreditation

https://keck.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/PIBBS-Gateway-Program_PLOs.pdf

https://keck.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Keck_Educational_Objectives_2019.pdf


231

Program (1)


(2)


(Please specify)

(3)


(4)



(5)


(6)


Course Assignments The course chairs and clerkship directors perform annual reviews of the overall quality and outcomes of the courses, and clerkships. Student performance (exams, OSCEs), USMLE exams, Graduation Questionnaire and student satisfaction are monitored and reviewed annually by the Years I-II and Years III-IV Curriculum Subcommittees. The Years I-II and Years III-IV Curriculum Subcommittees report their activities, findings, and recommendations to the MECC for review and approval. The associate dean for curriculum provides oversight and input at all levels of these processes. The MECC monitors and ensures the overall quality and outcomes of the systems, courses, and clerkships.

for the Years I-II and Years III-IV phases of the curriculum by the Years I-II and Years III-IV curriculum committees, respectively. The results of those reviews are submitted to the MECC. The MECC considers recommendations and determines appropriate actions to be addressed by the associate dean for curriculum with report to the vice dean for medical education.

USC Thornton School of Music

232

Program (1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)



(4)



(5)


(6)


program

Music (B.A.) Yes PLO Juries Faculty, Assoc. Dean for Academic Affairs

to revise and refine curriculum; to modify syllabi and course materials; to revise admission criteria; to revise repertoire requirements; to review student mentoring; and to better integrate super-curricular elements such as wellness, diversity and inclusion, outside performance opportunities, and cross-course and peer learning

June 2007

Choral Music (B.A.) Yes PLO Juries Faculty, Choral Music Chair/Program Director


Phasing out

Choral Music (B.M.) Yes PLO Juries and Young Artist Project (MUSC 480 & 481)

Faculty, Choral Music Chair/Program Director

to revise and refine curriculum; to modify syllabi and course materials; to revise admission criteria; to revise repertoire requirements; to review student mentoring; and to

New as of 2019/2020

https://music.usc.edu/departments/learning-objectives/




233

Program (1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)



(4)



(5)


(6)


program

better integrate super-curricular elements such as wellness, diversity and inclusion, outside performance opportunities, and cross-course and peer learning

Composition (B.M.) Yes PLO Recital and Young Artist Project (MUSC 480 & 481)

Faculty, Chair of Composition, to revise and refine curriculum; to modify syllabi and course materials; to revise admission criteria; to revise repertoire requirements; to review student mentoring; and to better integrate super-curricular elements such as wellness, diversity and inclusion, outside performance opportunities, and cross-course and peer learning

June 2007

Jazz Studies (B.M.) Yes PLO Recital Faculty, Chair of Jazz Studies to revise and refine curriculum; to modify syllabi and course materials; to revise admission criteria; to revise repertoire requirements; to review student mentoring; and to better integrate super-curricular elements such as wellness, diversity and inclusion, outside performance opportunities, and cross-course and peer learning

June 2007




234

Program (1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)



(4)



(5)


(6)


program

Music Industry (B.S.) Yes PLO MUIN 450, Practicum in Music Industry Issues (8 units). Includes field application of music industry theories and practices; part-time employment. The project is jointly defined by student, employer, and professor.

Faculty, Chair of Music Industry to revise and refine curriculum; to modify syllabi and course materials; to revise admission criteria; to revise repertoire requirements; to review student mentoring; and to better integrate super-curricular elements such as wellness, diversity and inclusion, outside performance opportunities, and cross-course and peer learning

June 2007

Music Industry (B.M.) Yes PLO Recital Faculty, Chair of Music Industry to revise and refine curriculum; to modify syllabi and course materials; to revise admission criteria; to revise repertoire requirements; to review student mentoring; and to better integrate super-curricular elements such as wellness, diversity and inclusion, outside performance opportunities, and cross-course and peer learning

June 2007

Music Production (B.M.) Yes PLO Project: MTEC 498ab Senior Project (2 units) Mentored project to bridge into career.

Faculty, Chair of Music Production

to revise and refine curriculum; to modify syllabi and course materials; to revise admission criteria; to revise repertoire requirements; to review student mentoring; and to

June 2007





235

Program (1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)



(4)



(5)


(6)


program

better integrate super-curricular elements such as wellness, diversity and inclusion, outside performance opportunities, and cross-course and peer learning

Performance (B.M.) • Bassoon

• Clarinet

• Classical Guitar

• Double Bass

• Flute

• French Horn

• Harp

• Oboe

• Organ

• Percussion

• Piano

• Popular Music

• Saxophone

• Studio Guitar

• Trombone • Trumpet

• Tuba

• Viola

• Violin

• Violoncello

• Vocal Arts

Yes PLO Recital and Young Artist Project (MUSC 480 & 481)

Faculty, appropriate chairs, Vice Dean of Classical Performance and Composition Division or Chair of Popular Music Performance, Vice Dean of Contemporary Music Division as appropriate to specific degree


June 2007

Music (Early Music Performance) (M.A.)

Yes PLO Thesis and Comprehensive Review Faculty, Early Music Program Director

to revise and refine curriculum; to modify syllabi and course materials; to revise admission criteria; to

Nov 2014




236

Program (1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)



(4)



(5)


(6)


program

revise repertoire requirements; to review student mentoring; and to better integrate super-curricular elements such as wellness, diversity and inclusion, outside performance opportunities, and cross-course and peer learning

Music (History and Literature) (M.A.)

Yes PLO Comprehensive Examination Faculty, Chair of Musicology to revise and refine curriculum; to modify syllabi and course materials; to revise admission criteria; to revise repertoire requirements; to review student mentoring; and to better integrate super-curricular elements such as wellness, diversity and inclusion, outside performance opportunities, and cross-course and peer learning

Nov 2014

Choral Music (M.M.) Yes PLO Recital & Comprehensive Review Faculty, Choral Music Chair/Program Director

to revise and refine curriculum; to modify syllabi and course materials; to revise admission criteria; to revise repertoire requirements; to review student mentoring; and to better integrate super-curricular elements such as wellness, diversity and inclusion, outside

Nov 2014




237

Program (1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)



(4)



(5)


(6)


program

performance opportunities, and cross-course and peer learning

Community Music (M.M) Yes PLO Capstone of MTAL 589 and 592, and Comprehensive Review

Faculty, Chair of Music Teaching and Learning


New as of 2017/2018

Composition (M.M.) Yes PLO Recital & Comprehensive Review Faculty, Chair of Composition to revise and refine curriculum; to modify syllabi and course materials; to revise admission criteria; to revise repertoire requirements; to review student mentoring; and to better integrate super-curricular elements such as wellness, diversity and inclusion, outside performance opportunities, and cross-course and peer learning

Nov 2014

Conducting (M.M.) Yes PLO Recital & Comprehensive Review Faculty, Conducting Program Director, Vice Dean for Classical Performance and Composition Division

to revise and refine curriculum; to modify syllabi and course materials; to revise admission criteria; to

Nov 2014





238

Program (1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)



(4)



(5)


(6)


program

revise repertoire requirements; to review student mentoring; and to better integrate super-curricular elements such as wellness, diversity and inclusion, outside performance opportunities, and cross-course and peer learning

Contemporary Teaching Practice (M.M)

Yes PLO Comprehensive Review, completion of proficiencies in snare drum, drum set, acoustic and electric guitar, and electronic keyboard, playing test in flute, clarinet, trumpet, trombone, violin, and cello, and vocal technique, and credential option



New as of 2017/2018, now discontinued

Jazz Studies (M.M.) Yes PLO Recital & Comprehensive Review Faculty, Chair of Jazz Studies to revise and refine curriculum; to modify syllabi and course materials; to revise admission criteria; to revise repertoire requirements; to review student mentoring; and to better integrate super-curricular elements such as wellness, diversity and inclusion, outside

Nov 2014




239

Program (1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)



(4)



(5)


(6)


program

performance opportunities, and cross-course and peer learning

Music Teaching and Learning (M.M.)

Yes PLO Thesis or Project and Comprehensive Review



Nov 2014

Performance (M.M.)

• Bassoon

• Clarinet • Classical Guitar

• Double Bass

• Flute

• French Horn

• Harp

• Keyboard Collaborative Arts

• Oboe • Organ

• Percussion

• Piano

• Saxophone

• Studio Guitar

• Trombone

• Trumpet

• Tuba

Yes PLO Recital and Comprehensive Review Faculty, appropriate chairs, Vice Dean of Classical Performance and Composition Division


Nov 2014




240

Program (1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)



(4)



(5)


(6)


program

• Viola

• Violin

• Violoncello

• Vocal Arts

Sacred Music (M.M.) Yes PLO Recital or Project and Comprehensive Review

Faculty, Choral Music Chair/Program Director


Nov 2014

Screen Scoring (M.M.) Yes PLO Portfolio Faculty, Chair of Screen Scoring to revise and refine curriculum; to modify syllabi and course materials; to revise admission criteria; to revise repertoire requirements; to review student mentoring; and to better integrate super-curricular elements such as wellness, diversity and inclusion, outside performance opportunities, and cross-course and peer learning

New as of 2016/2017

Arts Leadership (M.S.) Yes PLO Practicum project Faculty, Chair of Arts Leadership

to revise and refine curriculum; to modify syllabi

New as of 2017/2018





241

Program (1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)



(4)



(5)


(6)


program

and course materials; to revise admission criteria; to revise repertoire requirements; to review student mentoring; and to better integrate super-curricular elements such as wellness, diversity and inclusion, outside performance opportunities, and cross-course and peer learning

Music Industry (M.S.) Yes PLO Portfolio Faculty, Chair of Music Industry to revise and refine curriculum; to modify syllabi and course materials; to revise admission criteria; to revise repertoire requirements; to review student mentoring; and to better integrate super-curricular elements such as wellness, diversity and inclusion, outside performance opportunities, and cross-course and peer learning

New as of 2017/2018

Choral Music (D.M.A.) Yes PLO Recitals & Dissertation and Comprehensive Exam

Faculty, Choral Music Chair/Program Director. Graduate Advisory Committee reviews all applicants, interviews every student after year one of their program, approves their individualized course and field plan, and reviews the structure and

to revise and refine curriculum; to modify syllabi and course materials; to revise admission criteria; to revise repertoire requirements; to review student mentoring; and to better integrate super-curricular elements such as

Nov 2014




242

Program (1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)



(4)



(5)


(6)


program

content of their comprehensive exams.

wellness, diversity and inclusion, outside performance opportunities, and cross-course and peer learning

Composition (D.M.A.) Yes PLO Recital & Dissertation and Comprehensive Exam

Faculty, Chair of Composition. Graduate Advisory Committee reviews all applicants, interviews every student after year one of their program, approves their individualized course and field plan, and reviews the structure and content of their comprehensive exams.


Nov 2014

Early Music Performance (D.M.A.) Yes PLO Recitals and Comprehensive Exam Faculty, Early Music Program Director. Graduate Advisory Committee reviews all applicants, interviews every student after year one of their program, approves their individualized course and field plan, and reviews the structure and content of their comprehensive exams.


Nov 2014

Jazz Studies (D.M.A.) Yes PLO Lecture-Recital and Comprehensive Exam

Faculty, Chair of Jazz Studies, Graduate Advisory Committee

to revise and refine curriculum; to modify syllabi

Nov 2014





243

Program (1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)



(4)



(5)


(6)


program

reviews all applicants, interviews every student after year one of their program, approves their individualized course and field plan, and reviews the structure and content of their comprehensive exams.

and course materials; to revise admission criteria; to revise repertoire requirements; to review student mentoring; and to better integrate super-curricular elements such as wellness, diversity and inclusion, outside performance opportunities, and cross-course and peer learning

Music Teaching & Learning (D.M.A.) Yes PLO Dissertation and Comprehensive Exam

Faculty, Chair of Music Teaching and Learning, Vice Dean of Scholarly and Professional Division, Graduate Advisory Committee reviews all applicants, interviews every student after year one of their program, approves their individualized course and field plan, and reviews the structure and content of their comprehensive exams.


Nov 2014

Performance (D.M.A.)

• Bassoon

• Clarinet

• Classical Guitar

• Double Bass

• Flute

• French Horn • Harp

• Keyboard Collaborative Arts

Yes PLO Recitals and Comprehensive Exam Faculty, appropriate chairs, Vice Dean of Classical Performance and Composition Division, Graduate Advisory Committee reviews all applicants, interviews every student after year one of their program, approves their individualized course and field plan, and

to revise and refine curriculum; to modify syllabi and course materials; to revise admission criteria; to revise repertoire requirements; to review student mentoring; and to better integrate super-curricular elements such as

Nov 2014




244

Program (1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)



(4)



(5)


(6)


program

• Oboe

• Organ

• Percussion

• Piano

• Saxophone

• Studio Guitar

• Trombone

• Trumpet

• Tuba

• Viola

• Violin

• Violoncello • Vocal Arts

reviews the structure and content of their comprehensive exams.

wellness, diversity and inclusion, outside performance opportunities, and cross-course and peer learning

Music (Historical Musicology) (Ph.D.)

Yes PLO Qualifying Exam and Dissertation Faculty, Chair of Musicology, Faculty Committee reviews all applicants, interviews every student after year one of their program, approves their individualized course plan, assesses the qualifying exam, and evaluates the dissertation and its defense.


Nov 2014

Sacred Music (D.M.A.) Yes PLO Dissertation and Comprehensive Exam

Faculty, Choral Music Chair/Program Director, Graduate Advisory Committee reviews all applicants, interviews every student after year one of their program, approves their individualized course and field plan, and

to revise and refine curriculum; to modify syllabi and course materials; to revise admission criteria; to revise repertoire requirements; to review student mentoring; and to better integrate super-

Nov 2014




245

Program (1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)



(4)



(5)


(6)


program

reviews the structure and content of their comprehensive exams.

curricular elements such as wellness, diversity and inclusion, outside performance opportunities, and cross-course and peer learning

USC School of Pharmacy

246

Category

(1) Have

formal learning outcomes been develop

ed?

Yes/No



materials)?



stated outcomes for the degree? (e.g., capstone course, portfolio review, licensure examination)?





program.

Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD)

Yes The Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE)

publishes learning outcomes for all PharmD programs. The USC School of Pharmacy adheres to these national accreditation standards. The PharmD Program Learning Outcomes (also referred to as Ability Based Outcomes) are published on our USC School of Pharmacy PharmD website. These outcomes are also published as part of the USC School of Pharmacy website and University’s Accreditation website that list program outcomes for all programs at the USC School of Pharmacy. All PharmD syllabi directly list the Program Learning Outcomes that are covered in the course before listing its Course Learning Objectives. This is conducted through the School’s web-based syllabus template software known as AARDVARC (the Automated Approach to Reviewing and Developing Valuable Assessment Resources for your Curriculum). UCAR Self-Study Report (Prepared for April 2014 site visit) ACPE Self-Study Report (Prepared for January 2015 accreditation site visit)

Performance on the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) North American Pharmacist Licensure Examination (NAPLEX) shows that students are consistently performing at the highest level (96%+ passing rate for first-time candidates). Results from the State Board of Pharmacy California Pharmacy Jurisprudence Exam (CPJE) show that students are performing far above the average in comparison to other California pharmacy schools (84.5%+ passing rate). Licensure examination results and graduation rates are published each year on the USC School of Pharmacy PharmD website. During the third year in the PharmD program, the NABP also administers the Pharmacy Curriculum Outcomes Exam (PCOA). Each year, the School administers the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP) curriculum quality surveys to graduating students and faculty. Alumni and preceptors are surveyed every 3-4 years. Results are analyzed over time and also benchmarked nationally with other schools/colleges of pharmacy.

The National Boards of Pharmacy and California State Board of Pharmacy provide the results from licensure and outcomes examinations. Results are shared with the Dean, senior leadership, and USC School of Pharmacy faculty and students. They are further analyzed by the Office of Academic Affairs and PharmD Assessment Committee to ensure that students are consistently performing on par or better than previous years. The AACP curriculum quality surveys are analyzed every year and reported to the Dean and Pharmacy Faculty Council (PFC). The School uses a benchmark of 80% (i.e. 80% or more of respondents should agree or strongly agree with a statement). Results are frequently used to help identify strengths and areas for improvement, inform the School of Pharmacy Strategic Plan, the PharmD Assessment Plan, and specific changes that need to occur within the PharmD program. The mid-semester surveys are administered by the Office of Academic Affairs and discussed during PharmD Curriculum Committee meetings with the

All assessment-related data at the student, course, program, and School level are used to “close the loop” to improve the PharmD program and guide strategic initiatives and curricular revisions. The National Boards of Pharmacy and California State Board of Pharmacy results are used as programmatic and curricular feedback for both the PharmD Curriculum and Assessment Committees, as well as individual feedback for our students, with the ability to compare their scores with national benchmarks. The AACP Graduating Student Surveys are used to help assess (and improve, as needed) our students’: 1) interprofessional education, 2) professional competencies, outcomes, and curriculum, 3) pharmacy practice experiences, 4) student services, 5) student experiences, 6) facilities, experiential sites, and educational resources, and 7) overall impressions. Mid-semester survey results are used to help improve and make adjustments to courses in the second half of the semester for students. Co-curricular survey results are used to help inform the School of

Interim Review: 2018-2019 Customary on-site review cycles occur every eight years. Next review is expected during the 2022-2023 academic year.

https://www.acpe-accredit.org/pharmd-program-accreditation/

https://www.acpe-accredit.org/pharmd-program-accreditation/

https://pharmacyschool.usc.edu/programs/pharmd/pharmdprogram/

https://pharmacyschool.usc.edu/programs/pharmd/pharmdprogram/

https://pharmacyschool.usc.edu/programs/program-learning-objectives/


https://accreditation.usc.edu/learning-objectives/usc-school-of-pharmacy/

https://accreditation.usc.edu/learning-objectives/usc-school-of-pharmacy/

https://pharmacyschool.usc.edu/programs/pharmd/pharmdprogram/graduation-and-post-graduation-data/




247

Category

(1) Have


ed?

Yes/No



materials)?








program.

The SOP Assessment Planning Document

Mid-semester surveys are sent out to students to assess each course and identify what Program Learning Outcomes students have grown in since the beginning of the semester. Co-curricular surveys are also sent out to students to assess what Program Learning Outcomes are being covered through their co-curricular activities. PHRD 650 – APPE Gateway has multiple formal assessments of competencies prior to students being allowed to complete their last year of experiential training. PHRD 796b – Doctor of Pharmacy Capstone has a formal assessment of competencies after they complete their APPEs. An APPE Readiness survey is administered to students prior to beginning their APPEs and afterwards to assess their confidence levels across the required elements of the curriculum. Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) are performed multiple times throughout their required didactic curriculum. Students must create an academic and professional portfolio that tracks their

course coordinators by year (i.e. P1, P2, and P3 year). Co-curricular survey results are interpreted and discussed during the PharmD Assessment Committee meetings alongside the Associate Dean for Academic/Student Affairs and co-curriculum coordinator. USC School of Pharmacy faculty and preceptors evaluate didactic and experiential coursework. Course-specific rubrics are used to evaluate student performance. APPE Readiness survey results are evaluated by the PharmD Assessment Committee, compared with previous cohorts, and also used to make curricular changes Portfolios include their CV, documentation of their intern pharmacist license, additional certifications (e.g. BLS, HIPAA, APhA Immunization, etc.), work experience, professional organizations, honors and awards, student work, IPPE learning plans, assignments, and post-reflections, evaluated by the Professional Experience Programs (PEP) faculty and staff.

the complementary activities that help our students grow across Program Learning Outcomes, as well as their own personal and professional development. Performance on assessments in didactic and experiential coursework help with assigning grades and tracking students’ progress toward achieving Program Learning Outcomes and all required elements of the PharmD curriculum. APPE Readiness surveys are used to help inform what additional preparation may be needed in the didactic curriculum, co-curriculum, and/or Introductory Pharmacy Practice Experiences (IPPEs) prior to entering APPEs. AARDVARC data is used to help assess coverage of PharmD Program Learning Outcomes, course learning objectives, teaching and assessment methods, and serve as a framework for curriculum mapping Students’ portfolios are used to ensure they meet the requirements and expected outcomes E*Value (the evaluation site for portfolios) is also used as the primary evaluation system for both USC


248

Category

(1) Have


ed?

Yes/No



materials)?








program.

professional development and competencies within experiential programs.

preceptors of the students and students of their rotation

Bachelor of Science, Pharmacology and Drug Development (PDD)

Yes Overall program objectives and requirements, including RXRS course syllabi were first submitted to the University Office of Curriculum and prior to this, various levels of committee review at the School level. They have now been codified in the USC Catalogue and on the USC School of Pharmacy website. All RXRS course syllabi are reviewed for the following before being published on the Schedule of Classes Course objectives and expectations The RXRS courses utilize Bloom’s Taxonomy to construct objectives that are relevant to the course material and track to course deliverables Compliance with curriculum requirements Compliance with university policies on Financial Aid Compliance with faculty contact time and weekly instructional time (15 weeks, 3 hours per week) Grading schema Statement on academic policies and procedures (updated regularly by the University)

Students in the PPD major who are admitted to USC Pharmacy School (100%) Students invited to professional conferences Students obtaining internships in industry Students qualifying for the Dean’s List Students compete for merit and diversity scholarships Undergraduates demonstrate competency through successful completion of their degree requirements Midsemester and end of semester grading is utilized to identify potential performance issues; the grade report system allows for the flagging of students who are below course expected performance and triggers a warning to both student and their academic advisor Program faculty are in the process of developing a Senior project for those in the major that will highlight the work the student has done and will have formal evaluation points for competency in the major

Faculty and staff maintain regular contact with the students and encourage them to reach out at all times. Student performance in each course is reviewed at the end of each term by instructors in accordance with the syllabi requirements and Associate Dean of Undergraduate Education. The Associate Dean signs off on the marks in the university system to be sure that the outcomes have been reviewed prior to submission. Students with performance issues are identified at the midpoint of each course and are counselled by the course instructor and director, who clarify expectations. Students who have been identified as “at risk” are encouraged to speak with their academic advisors about the various resources available to students, including: USC Dornsife Supplemental Instruction program USC Tutoring Services program The program also places an emphasis on student wellness and mental health through the following programs: USC Wellness programs at both the University and School level

Success in the program has been identified through academic completion of degree requirements Further markers of success are under development and include the incorporation of a senior project that students in the major will be required to complete; this project will be designed to test proficiency and understanding of relevant topics within the field while simultaneously engaging the students in formalized research.

This program was officially instituted in August of 2018. As a faculty, we reviewed the program July 2019, assessed the direction of the program and discussed ideas to help grow the program and to ensure quality coursework and outcomes of the program. A strong indicator of the success of this nascent program can be seen in the growth of students enrolled into the major of current students (42) and 11 students who have graduated to date. Of the 11 students, 7 have continued on to graduate / professional training in

about:blank



about:blank

about:blank

about:blank

about:blank

about:blank

about:blank


249

Category

(1) Have


ed?

Yes/No



materials)?








program.

Trojans Care 4 Trojans program USC Student Health office The current average GPA of students in the PDD major is 3.37. Exceptional students (3.5 term GPA) are also identified on the Dean’s List at the end of each term.

pharmacy, law, and medicine; 2 have gone into the workforce; and the remaining 2 have taken internships prior to pharmacy school.

Health Economics (PhD)

Yes Learning objectives are published in all course syllabi for the program and outcomes are communicated to students during orientation to the program. Additionally, the learning objectives are also published as part of the USC School of Pharmacy website that lists program outcomes for all programs at the USC School of Pharmacy. UCAR Self-Study Report (Prepared for April 2014 site visit) ACPE Self-Study Report (Prepared for January 2015 accreditation site visit) The SOP Assessment Planning Document

Established competency is demonstrated by successful completion of the screening exam at the end of year 2. Track all student posters and podium presentations from research meetings, especially the annual meeting of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research [ISPOR]. We have lists of presentations going back at least to 2000. USC always has more student presentations and more awards than any other program, worldwide. PhD students must present a dissertation defense. The student must write a final thesis and be able to defend their work orally to their thesis committee. We also track the ISPOR posters and podium presentations for alumni each year. We maintain a list of all alumni and their current employment. All of our alumni who wish to work in the field are employed. All of our recent PhD

Faculty evaluate course work, PEP faculty administer and grade the screening exams at the end of year 2, committee of five faculty from the School and outside members evaluate the students written dissertation proposal and oral defense [qualifying exam] and a committee of three faculty with at least one outside member evaluate the dissertation.

For curricular feedback on graduate courses by the Curriculum Committee. For feedback on achievement of research and scholarship learning outcomes by graduate faculty and the Graduate Affairs Committee. For graduate faculty advising on individual thesis development.

UCAR Self-Study Report, January 2014 Site visit April 2014 Report issued June 2014

about:blank

about:blank

about:blank




250

Category

(1) Have


ed?

Yes/No



materials)?








program.

graduates had jobs prior to graduation with starting salaries $140K/year + bonus.

Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy (M.S.) Progressive M.S. in Health Economics

Yes Learning objectives are published in all course syllabi for the program and outcomes are communicated to students during orientation to the program. Additionally, the learning objectives are also published as part of the USC School of Pharmacy website that lists program outcomes for all programs at the USC School of Pharmacy.

Established competency is demonstrated by the completion of a research paper that applies pharmaceutical economics and policy analysis. Track all student posters and podium presentations from research meetings, especially the annual meeting of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research [ISPOR]. We have lists of presentations going back at least to 2000. USC always has more student presentations and more awards than any other program, worldwide. We also track the ISPOR posters and podium presentations for alumni each year. We maintain a list of all alumni and their current employment. All our alumni who wish to work in the field are employed. All of our recent MS graduates had jobs prior to graduation with starting salaries $120K/year + bonus.

Faculty evaluate course work, three faculty evaluate the quality of the students research paper

For curricular feedback on graduate courses by the curriculum committee. For graduate faculty advising on individual research paper development.

UCAR Self-Study Report, January 2014 Site visit April 2014 Report issued June 2014.

Pharmaceutical and Translational Sciences PhD Program -Three tracks:

Yes Outcomes are associated with the specific objectives stated for the PhD Program with the admission of outstanding students that have

Course work with emphasis on evaluation of written exams PhD students rotate in at least 2 labs to assist in dissertation lab selection; the student and faculty

The Faculty members(s) evaluate the PhD students on their ability to learn how to read scientific literature and conduct experiments at the end of their

For curricular feedback on achievement of learning outcomes in graduate courses by the Curriculum Committee.

UCAR Self-Study Report, January 2014




251

Category

(1) Have


ed?

Yes/No



materials)?








program.

Molecular Pharmacology and Toxicology (PhD) Pharmaceutical Sciences (PhD) Clinical and Experimental Therapeutics (PhD)

demonstrated high scholarship and a strong commitment to research. Learning objectives are published in all course syllabi for the program and outcomes are communicated to students during orientation to the program. Additionally, the learning objectives are also published as part of the USC School of Pharmacy website that lists program outcomes for all programs at the USC School of Pharmacy. UCAR Self-Study Report (Prepared for April 2014 site visit) ACPE Self-Study Report (Prepared for January 2015 accreditation site visit) The SOP Assessment Planning Document

each fill out surveys to identify the best lab match. Once the PhD students identify their dissertation lab and join a PhD track, they are required to conduct research with the School’s Graduate Affairs Committee review and the mentor regularly assessing the quality of research performed. Established competency to be demonstrated by passing the qualifying exam which consists of two parts (oral and written) for advancement to Ph. D. candidacy after the first 2 years of their studies. The written qualifying exam is a document that composed by the student that describes the thesis proposal, expected outcomes, and potential pitfalls. The oral qualifying exam tests the written thesis proposal, along with demonstrating that the PhD candidate has the capability of communicating ideas verbally and has the ability to think independently PhD students are required to fill out an Individual Development Plan (IDP) annually to discuss their goals for the upcoming year, list their professional development needs and to review their accomplishments for the previous year.

rotation periods. The students also fill out a similar survey to evaluate the faculty’s mentoring skills.

The thesis committee, comprised of 2 faculty member(s) and the faculty advisor(s), monitor the progress of PhD student’s research throughout the program, and evaluate the final written and oral thesis defense. Both the oral exam and a comprehensive written exam are conducted and evaluated by the qualifying exam committee comprised of 5 graduate school faculty members

Graduate Affairs Office and the Faculty advisor(s) review the IDP with students to ensure the student is progressing in their research and programmatic milestones are met. The Office of Graduate Affairs also uses the IDPs to identify areas where professional development is needed and schedule workshops to address those needs. Participants are asked to fill out a survey following each workshop to determine the effectiveness of the workshop. -The Office of Graduate Affairs collect the TA evaluations.

Faculty members-including the research advisor(s) and thesis

For feedback on achievement of research and scholarship learning outcomes by graduate faculty and the Graduate Affairs Committee. For graduate faculty advising on individual thesis development. The results of the IDP are used to develop professional development programming to strengthen students’ training (i.e. grant writing, networking skills, social media branding, CV and resume writing, etc. These workshops are a concerted effort that involves other PhD programs on HSC to maximize reach. The results of the professional development surveys are used to determine the effectiveness of the programming and inform the Graduate Affairs Office where additional programming is needed. The TA evaluations are used to strengthen TA training and adapt the TA assignment process to enhance the TA experience. Markers of student success (fellowship data, publication data, time to degree, GPA, alumni employment) are used to recruit highly qualified students from a diverse

UCAR Site visit April 2014 Report issued June 2014.




252

Category

(1) Have


ed?

Yes/No



materials)?








program.

Teaching assistants are evaluated by the course coordinators. PhD students must present their research annually in a student seminar to demonstrate their communication and presentation skills. Track number of internal and external fellowships obtained by the students Track publications in peer reviewed journals. Track presentations at national meetings. PhD students must perform a dissertation defense. The student must write a final thesis and be able to defend their work orally to their thesis committee. Track alumni employment and placing. Track retention and graduation rates Approximately 60% of the graduates obtain positions in the pharmaceutical industry post-graduation. To give our students a competitive advantage, our PhD students are encouraged to pursue the MS in Regulatory Sciences concurrently.

committee members attend the student seminar series to engage the student with questions to test the student’s critical thinking skills.

The dissertation defense is conducted and evaluated by at least 3 faculty including the research advisor and thesis committee members.

The Office of Graduate Affairs analyzes the number of fellowships, and types of fellowships obtained to determine the grant-writing needs of the students

Faculty members and communication experts rank the students’ communication skills at the Annual School of Pharmacy Three Minute Thesis Competition.

Alumni employment is tracked by the department, the Office of Graduate Affairs, and at the University level.

Retention and graduation rates, time to degree, first-author publications, academic performance in graduate courses are tracked by the Office of Graduate Affairs.

background including 30% underrepresented minority students to the PhD programs.

Molecular Pharmacology and Toxicology (M.S.)

Yes Outcomes are associated with the specific objectives stated for the M.S. Program with the admission of outstanding

Course work with emphasis on evaluation of written exams The M.S. degree requires at least 24 units of formal course work. A

Faculty member(s) advising the M.S. graduate student.

For curricular feedback on achievement of learning outcomes in graduate courses by the Curriculum Committee.

UCAR Self-Study Report, January 2014


253

Category

(1) Have


ed?

Yes/No



materials)?








program.

• Pharmaceutical Sciences (M.S.)

• Clinical and Experimental Therapeutics (M.S.)

students that have demonstrated high scholarship and a strong commitment to research. Learning objectives are published in all course syllabi for the program and outcomes are communicated to students during orientation to the program. Additionally, the learning objectives are also published as part of the USC School of Pharmacy website that lists program outcomes for all programs at the USC School of Pharmacy.

further 4 units are required through presentation of (1) an acceptable thesis (MPTX 594a, MPTX 594b each 2 units) based on the results of an original investigation or (2) through a non-thesis option for a total of 28 units (program revision effective Fall 2020, addition of non-thesis option to all programs and change from 36 to 28 units for CXPT program). Students must choose one of these options by the end of the first year of study. Publications in peer reviewed journals. Presentations at national meetings.

-The thesis committee, comprised of at least 3 faculty members including the faculty advisor(s), evaluate the final written thesis. The Graduate Affairs Committee of the School of Pharmacy. The Graduate Curriculum Committee of the School of Pharmacy

For feedback on achievement of research and scholarship learning outcomes by graduate faculty. For graduate faculty advising on individual thesis development.

Site visit April 2014 Report issued June 2014.

Department: Regulatory Science Degree: Professional Doctorate in Regulatory Science (DRSC)

Yes Stated objectives are approved at the time that the program was approved through institutional curriculum review at several levels Program learning objectives are stated on the website and are communicated in a three-day off-site retreat with the new entrants to the program, at which time the students meet as a group and then individually with members of the faculty with whom they will be working on their research, to discuss objectives and expectations – see

-Courses have deliverables such as teaching slide sets and situational case studies that require students to work together on real-life situations. -Two courses require international travel to regulatory agencies and other venues in Asia and Europe where students are judged intensively on their level of interaction, maturity of contributions to regulatory meetings and questions and discussions of regulatory hot topics. -Students write a conventional dissertation requiring original research, that is reviewed at

-Student performance in each course is reviewed at the end of each term by instructors and the chair of the department. The chair of the program uploads and signs off on the marks in the university system to be sure that the outcomes have been reviewed prior to submission. -Students with performance issues are identified at the midpoint of each course and are counselled by the course instructor and chair, who clarify expectations. -Monthly department meetings are held at which any concerns

Findings regarding admissions, acceptance, and graduation rates are communicated yearly to the Advisory Board that has industry participation. Problems are also communicated if the Advisory Board input would be helpful. Program issues and recommended changes are discussed twice a year by all faculty in the program at a biannual day-long retreat designed specifically to examine and critique current programs. The student supervisory committee is updated on the

UCAR Self-Study Report, January 2014 UCAR Site visit April 2014 Report issued June 2014. This profession is new and has no formal accreditation process but has a set of core competences published by the Association of Graduate Regulatory




http://www.agreglobal.org/






254

Category

(1) Have


ed?

Yes/No



materials)?








program.

Department Website

qualifying examination and then by a targeted focus group of experts in the area of dissertation research. -Publications in journals and presentations at national and international meetings are tracked

regarding student progress are brought up. -Failure to meet research milestones are reviewed by the whole faculty in the department and recommendations for remediation are made. - The dissertation defense is conducted and evaluated by at least 3 faculty including the research advisor and thesis committee members.

progress of the student at least twice a year. Students who are not performing well early in the program are counselled and tracked. If poor performance persists despite efforts to aid, they are encouraged to explore other options. Findings related to learning outcomes are discussed at departmental meetings and addressed during biannual faculty retreats.

Educators; on their website to which we commit, and to which we reference our courses and activities.

Department: Regulatory Science MS Programs:

• Medical Product Quality

• Regulatory Science

• Management of Drug Development

• Regulatory Management

Yes Overall program requirements are published on our website. Core competencies are linked to specific courses containing the most relevant material Each program stream has a set of stated objectives approved at the time that the program was approved through institutional curriculum review at several levels. The USC School of Pharmacy website lists program outcomes for all programs at the USC School of Pharmacy.

Students are encouraged to develop a professional portfolio in a special binder that is given to them at the start of the first term of study, and expectations are defined with them in an orientation session given at the beginning of each term. Because the focus for each student varies, no specified “generic” rubric exists to evaluate the skillsets forming this portfolio yet. -Almost every course has a group project that simulates a real-life situation in which students are exposed to the types of outcomes that would be expected when they take up a professional role. The project is presented formally to the class; performance is recorded, and feedback is given.

Student performance in each course is reviewed at the end of each term by instructors and the director of the program. The director of the program uploads and signs off on the marks in the university system to be sure that the outcomes have been reviewed prior to submission. Students with performance issues are identified at the midpoint of each course and are counselled by the course instructor and director, who clarify expectations. Monthly Center meetings are held at which any concerns regarding student progress are brought up. An Advisory Board receives a report from faculty and internship sites regarding the caliber of the students and

Findings regarding admissions, acceptance, and graduation rates are communicated yearly to the Advisory Board that has industry participation. Problems (without attribution specifics) are also communicated if Advisory Board input would be helpful to solve the problem Students who are not performing well early in the program are counselled and tracked. If poor performance persists despite efforts to provide tutoring and other assistance, they are encouraged to explore other options. Students who have not had professional experience have internship opportunities in a site of practice. They are adjudicated by a monthly self-

January 2020; UCAR completed a preliminary review of the master’s program in Regulatory Science. This profession is new and has no formal accreditation process but has a set of core competences published by the Association of Graduate Regulatory Educators on their website to which we

https://regulatory.usc.edu/programs/drsc/











255

Category

(1) Have


ed?

Yes/No



materials)?








program.

Students provide feedback on the engagement and roles of other members of team projects, typical of almost every course.

provides input on any areas that should be strengthened

reflection in a written report. Feedback is solicited from internship site managers. A form has been developed to collect such information. Findings related to learning outcomes are discussed at departmental meetings and addressed during biannual faculty retreats.

commit, and to which we reference our courses and activities.

Healthcare Decision Analysis (HCDA) (Master of Science)

Yes The HCDA website and USC course catalog add additional detail to each course and overall program requirements and methods of instruction. Each course and detailed syllabi illustrate the three core areas of focus and integration from: applied health policy, business intelligence and health economics and analytics. HCDA is based on individual course learning & outcomes as part of unique and detailed syllabi across 17 unique courses. The USC School of Pharmacy website lists program outcomes for all programs at the USC School of Pharmacy. All program adaptations and courses are approved by: School of Pharmacy, Schaeffer Faculty and P&HE Department Chairman, and USC Provost.

All students are required to undergo a detailed interview prior to admission based on appropriate other graduate and undergraduate training. Students are then closely monitored by HCDA Program Director(s) across all courses as part of the teamwork and analytical skills required, including both oral and written exam and presentations. Students are also evaluated externally through both their internships/rotations and other professional encounters with active feedback to HCDA. Students who participate in the directed research course are evaluated using an assessment rubric to ensure proper assignment of credit.

The HCDA Director and Leonard Schaeffer Faculty evaluate students along with detailed input from selected external speakers. Student course grades are based on written exams and reports (50%), plus active classroom activity (50%). Student classroom and project/team participation is 100% observed by multiple HCDA Faculty and staff. In addition, peer to peer input is also encouraged as a reflection of “real world” experiences. Secondly, external mentors and coaches offer feedback on student ability, professionalism and participation outside the classroom. The curriculum committee has revised and standardized student assessments and course examinations throughout the

Team participation, technical and analytical skills, presentation and communication ability for >50% of their total grade. -Each student is interviewed per semester and direct feedback is offered by the program Director and Manager of Student Affairs. Each of these aspects plays a critical role in recommendations, participation and placement into professional careers and Industry opportunities. Award of the MS degree is finally based on successful demonstration of technical & analytical (40%), professional applications (30%), communication & leadership (20%) and ethical (10%) achievements. In 2019 HCDA established three core committee: (1) Admissions Committee; (2) Curriculum

The HCDA Program was reviewed in July 2019 by faculty.




256

Category

(1) Have


ed?

Yes/No



materials)?








program.

curriculum to ensure program learning objectives are achieved.

Committee; (3) APPP Committee. The Admissions Committee revised program admissions criteria and procedures to promote appropriate evaluation of potential candidates. The Curriculum Committee revised program learning objectives to reflect the changing healthcare business landscape in order to best prepare its students for the workplace. The APPP revised policies for completion and appropriate assessment of course work in the case of student absences.

USC Sol Price School of Public Policy

257

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)



(4)



(5)


(6)


program

Public Policy (B.S.) Yes • Catalogue;

• Brochure and marketing materials;

• Website

• PLO

• Grades and Faculty Evaluations;

• Capstone: PPD 431: Undergraduate Policy, Planning and Development Studio;

• Internship requirement, evaluations and the course PPD 301

• Focus group/survey data

- Public Policy Department Chair and Vice-Chair; - Public Policy faculty in regular meetings; Faculty considers how the evidence demonstrates the success or failure of the overall curriculum and courses of instruction, internship data, and other programs

Findings are used to effect changes in the curriculum and student experience within the degree

N/A – new program in fall 2016 UCAR review scheduled in AY 21-22

Urban Studies and Planning (B.S.) Yes • Catalogue;


• Website

• PLO

• Grades and Faculty Evaluations;

• Capstone: PPD 431: Undergraduate Policy, Planning and Development Studio;

• Internship requirement, evaluations and the course PPD 301

• Focus group/survey data

- Urban Studies & Planning Department Chair; - Urban Studies & Planning faculty in regular meetings Faculty considers how the evidence demonstrates the success or failure of the overall curriculum and courses of instruction, internship data, and other programs

Findings are used to effect changes in the curriculum and student experience within the degree

N/A – new program in fall 2016 UCAR review scheduled in AY 21-22

Real Estate Development (B.S.) Yes • Catalogue; • Brochure and

marketing materials;

• Website

• PLO

• Grades and Faculty Evaluations; • Capstone Student Exhibition

Judging;

• Internship Evaluations and the Internship Class (301);

• Capstone: PPD 431 Undergraduate Policy, Planning and Development Studio; and

• Focus Group Data

- Real Estate Department Chair; - Real Estate Development Field Coordinator; - Evidence is interpreted by the department faculty Evaluate data on the success or failure of the overall curriculum and individual courses, the internship and the capstone experience

Findings are used by the faculty field committee to effect changes in the curriculum and student experience within the degree

New program in fall 2015 (No external accrediting agency for review) UCAR review scheduled in AY 21-22

https://priceschool.usc.edu/programs/undergraduate/bs-public-policy/

https://priceschool.usc.edu/programs/undergraduate/bs-urban-studies-planning/

https://priceschool.usc.edu/programs/undergraduate/bs-red/program-learning-objectives/


258

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)



(4)



(5)


(6)


program

Public Administration (M.P.A.) Yes • Catalogue;


• Website

• PLO

• Capstone course (PPD 546, Professional Practice of Public Administration);

• Collection of placement data through annual graduate survey;

• Review of course materials and evaluations

- Governance & Management Department Chair; - Governance & Management Vice-Chair; - Governance & Management Public Administration faculty in regular meetings; - Accreditation by NASPAA30 Evidence is interpreted by department faculty and through accreditation

Qualification of students to graduate; program and curricular improvement

UCAR 2002; NASPAA 2014 * NASPAA reaccreditation site visit was in March 2020. We anticipate a successful reaccreditation shortly.

Planning (MUP) Yes • Catalogue;


• Website

• PLO

• Capstone: PPD 629 Capstone in Urban Planning

• Internship experience data


• Review of course materials

- Urban Studies & Planning Department Chair - Urban Studies & Planning department faculty Evidence is interpreted by the department leadership and faculty committees within the department

Findings are used by the department chair to effect changes in the curriculum and overall student experience

UCAR 2002 PAB31 2014 *This is a new program that replaced the MPL in fall 19 * PAB reaccreditation will be AY 20-21

Public Policy (M.P.P.) Yes • Catalogue;


• Website

• PLO

• Capstone project (PPD 561ab, Policy Analysis Practicum) with submission of projects to external clients;

• Collection of placement data through graduate survey;



- Public Policy Department Chair and Vice-Chair; - Public Policy faculty in regular meetings; Faculty considers how the evidence demonstrates the success or failure of the overall

Qualification of students to graduate; program improvement; faculty input on curriculum

UCAR 2002 (No external accrediting agency for review)

30 National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA) – www.naspaa.org 31 Planning Accreditation Board (PAB) – www.planningaccreditationboard.org/

https://priceschool.usc.edu/mpa/mpa-curriculum/mission-values-objectives/

https://priceschool.usc.edu/programs/masters/mup/curriculum/program-learning-objectives/

https://priceschool.usc.edu/mpp/curriculum/program-learning-objectives/

http://www.naspaa.org/

http://www.planningaccreditationboard.org/


259

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)



(4)



(5)


(6)


program

curriculum and courses of instruction

Public Policy and Management (IPPAM)

Yes • Catalogue;


• Website

• Program orientation

• PLO

• Core coursework with applied projects: a research poster (PPD 570), an evaluation design (PPD 542), a policy analysis (PPD 571);

• Evaluations of student presentations;

• Regular meetings with faculty;

• Capstone project (PPD 569);

• Class performance data; and

• Placement data of graduates.

- Program director; - Public Policy Department - Leadership oversight; Solicit feedback from key faculty in the program, and program staff (advisors, recruiters, etc.). Typically occurs in summer once a cohort graduates and prior to the new cohort’s arrival.

The findings are used in making adjustments to course content and/or the design of course projects and assignments. Sometimes the findings lead us to make suggestions to faculty about their methods of teaching and occasionally, we may bring in new faculty or guest speakers. We also look for opportunities to link skills across courses, so that skills learned in courses taken early in the program can be better applied to work done in courses taken toward the end of the program. Occasionally, the findings are used to identify and design new course offerings and/or to offer new areas of specialization within the degree program.


Health Administration (M.H.A.) Yes • Catalogue;


• Website

• Successful completion of PPD 515;

• Successful completion of capstone project(s)

• Residency requirement fulfillment (PPD 512)

• Review of courses materials

- Health Policy & Management Department Chair; - Health Policy & Management department faculty;

Faculty teaching capstone and residency report to department faculty for integration in course and program revision; Capstone projects are considered for

UCAR 2002; CAHME32 2013 *CAHME reaccreditation

32 Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Management Education (CAHME) – www.cahme.org/

https://ippam.usc.edu/curriculum/

http://www.cahme.org/


260

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)



(4)



(5)


(6)


program

• In program capstone course syllabus (PPD 515)

• PLO

• Student feedback Faculty teaching capstone and residency courses evaluate performance of individual students; additional curriculum review as needed by department faculty; annual retreat

presentation at annual project day

will take place in AY 20-21

Executive Master of Health Administration (M.H.A.)

Yes • Catalogue; • Brochure and


• Website

• In program capstone course syllabus (HMGT 570)

• PLO

• Successful completion of HMGT 570;

• Successful completion of capstone project(s)

• In residency program

• Student feedback

- Health Policy & Management Department Chair; - Health Policy & Management department faculty Faculty teaching capstone course evaluate performance of individual students; annual retreat

Faculty teaching capstone course report to faculty field committee for integration in course and program revision

Online program launched in fall 2013; No external accrediting agency for review

Executive Master of Leadership (M.L.)

Yes • Catalogue;


• PLO

• Faculty Evaluations

• Capstone course: PPD 643

• Core class projects – presentation and paper

• Student feedback

- Program Director; - Governance and Management Department Leadership oversight; Faculty instructors and the program directors grade the work and interpret evidence in their discussions of student performance.

Used for the purpose of improving educational effectiveness.

Program began in 2007; no history of program review or external accrediting agency for reivew

Nonprofit Leadership and Management (M.N.L.M.)



• Website

• PLO

• Capstone course (PPDE 682 Strategic Leadership and Management in Nonprofit Organizations)


- Governance and Management Department Chair and Vice-Chair; - Governance and management department faculty in regular meetings

Qualification of students to graduate; program improvement through curriculum updates

New program in fall 2015; No external accrediting agency for review

https://priceschool.usc.edu/mha/mha-program-competencies/

https://healthadministrationdegree.usc.edu/academics/curriculum/

https://eml.usc.edu/curriculum

https://priceschool.usc.edu/mnlm/curriculum/program-learning-objectives/


261

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)



(4)



(5)


(6)


program

Faculty evaluate course feedback and capstone activities to interpret program success

Real Estate Development (M.R.E.D.) Yes • Catalogue;


• Website

• PLO

Comprehensive Examination - Real Estate Department Chair; - Real Estate Development Field Coordinator; - Evidence is interpreted by the department faculty; - annual retreat

Enhancements to curriculum content and course offerings


Public Policy Data Science (MS) Yes • Catalogue;


• Website

• PLO

• Capstone course: INF 560 Data Informatics Professional Practicum

• Collection of placement data through graduate survey;



- Public Policy Department Chair and Vice-Chair; - Public Policy faculty in regular meetings; - Viterbi faculty (joint program) Faculty considers how the evidence demonstrates the success or failure of the overall curriculum and courses of instruction

Qualification of students to graduate; program improvement; faculty input on curriculum

NA New program in fall 18/first class in fall 19

Policy, Planning and Development (D.P.P.D.) [Formerly recognized as the Doctor of Policy and Development Studies, D.P.D.S.]

Yes • Catalogue;


• Doctoral Handbook;

• Website

• PLO

• Year 3 directed research with professional dissertation chairperson

• Qualifying Exam at the end of year three

• Dissertation PLUS 694abcdz – completed in a capstone class format

- Program Director; - Vice Dean for Academic Affairs Year 3 begins with a 4-unit directed research with the professional dissertation chairperson to prepare for the qualifying exam at the end of year three. The professional dissertation is a research-based study of a

Used for the purpose of improving educational effectiveness.

UCAR 2002 (No external accrediting agency for review) *Scheduled for UCAR review in spring 22-fall 22

https://priceschool.usc.edu/mred/curriculum/program-learning-objectives/

https://priceschool.usc.edu/mppds/

https://priceschool.usc.edu/programs/doctoral-programs/dppd/


262

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)



(4)



(5)


(6)


program

policy issue, an administrative process, or other element of professional practice. Units are completed in a class format with their cohort (PLUS 694abcdz).

Public Policy and Management (Ph.D.)



• Website

• Doctoral handbook

• PLO

• Screening; • Work plans;

• Qualifying examinations;

• Proposal defense;

• Doctoral dissertation and doctoral defense;

• Annual data on placement of doctorates

- Doctoral committee in regular meetings; - Dissertation committee; - Vice Dean for Academic Affairs - Program Director Evidence is interpreted by PhD committee and school leadership through all stages of doctoral program (courses, exams, timely degree progress, etc).

Screening and qualification of students in progressing through program; program and curriculum improvement

New program in fall 2010 *UCAR review scheduled in spring 22-fall 22

Urban Planning and Development (Ph.D.)

Yes • Catalogue;


• Website

• Doctoral handbook

• PLO

• Screening;

• Work plans; • Qualifying examinations;

• Proposal defense;

• Doctoral dissertation and doctoral defense;

• Annual data on placement of doctorates

- Doctoral committee in regular meetings; - Dissertation committee; - Vice Dean for Academic Affairs - Program Director Evidence is interpreted by PhD committee and school leadership through all stages of doctoral program (courses, exams, timely degree progress, etc).

Screening and qualification of students in progressing through program; program and curriculum improvement

New program in fall 2010 *UCAR review scheduled in spring 22-fall 22

Policy, Planning and Development (B.S.)**

Yes • Catalogue; • Brochure;

• Website

NA program is not active NA NA UCAR 2002 (No external accrediting

https://priceschool.usc.edu/programs/doctoral-programs/ppm/curriculum/program-learning-objectives/

https://priceschool.usc.edu/programs/doctoral-programs/upd/curriculum/program-learning-objectives/


263

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)



(4)



(5)


(6)


program

**Program is terminated effective summer 16 (still graduating a small number of students)

agency for review)

Planning and Development Studies (M.P.D.S.)

No Not published – program not active

N/A program is not active NA NA NA

USC School of Social Work

264

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)



(4)



(5)


(6)



program

Master of Social Work (MSW)

Yes The Council of Social Work Education (CSWE) has defined nine Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS) representing the nine core competencies for social work education. These competencies describe the knowledge, values, skills and cognitive and affective processes which define the comprehensive structure for curriculum design and the measurement of performance outcomes. The EPAS are integrated into each course syllabus, highlighting which core competencies are addressed in the course and connecting the core competencies to the specific measures that will be used to

• Semester Curriculum Assessment Student writing samples

• Student assignments

• End of year surveys (student, course, and faculty)

• Alumni surveys

• Satisfaction surveys

• Course evaluations (midterm/end of year)

• Field Instructor Evaluations (mid and end of year)

• Student self assessment

• LCSW (Licensed Clinical Social Worker) pass rate for alumni

The School’s Associate Dean for Curriculum Planning and Assessment and Curriculum Council oversee ongoing collection of data, analysis of findings and dissemination of results. We have a Student Learning Outcomes Workgroup comprised of the MSW Chair and a subset of the Curriculum Council dedicated to this work. The goal is to make data and findings available to those who are likely to use it to improve educational and programmatic effectiveness. The SLO Workgroup provides ongoing review of data collection and findings, helping to set priorities and make decisions. This serves as the foundation for a system of “continuous quality improvement.” Key faculty are included as appropriate. The process promotes openness, creativity, and transparency so that all members of the school can participate in the positive incorporation of “data” into our program development.

Findings from data help to identify areas of success as well as areas to target for change. Findings provide information to support changes (if necessary) in teaching approaches, curriculum, student assignments, student support services, faculty support, and overall programmatic adjustments or enhancements.

Reaccredited 2018 by Council on Social Work Education


265

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)



(4)



(5)


(6)



program

assess student learning outcomes. For MSW Learning Objectives: PLO link Student Learning Outcomes are published at:

PhD, Social Work

Yes Peterson's Annual Survey of Graduate and Professional; Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education (GADE) PLO

The School of Social Work implemented a tracking system that consists of an intricate student database to be certain that each student has met specified benchmarks during their tenure in our doctoral program. These include not only completion of specific classes with a minimum GPA of B or better, but also several additional markers, including: development of an individualized study plan in the spring of the first year to guide their selection of course requirements in the second year of the program, formation of their qualifying-exam committee, approval of their qualifying-exam proposal, successful completion of the qualifying exam, formation of their dissertation committee, approval of their dissertation proposal, and completion of their dissertation. We also benchmark

The Doctoral Committee, comprised of Social Work faculty, interprets the evidence in consultation with the school’s Curriculum Council based upon the values and objectives of the Graduate and Professional Education at the University of Southern California. Each of the students in the program is assigned a faculty mentor who provides the student with guidance and mentorship throughout their doctoral studies. The student’s faculty mentor is a member of the doctoral committee. The role of the faculty mentor is to prepare each student for leadership in research, teaching and the application of knowledge and professional practice.

The findings are used for identifying strengths and weaknesses of our program, for developing new paths for the enrichment and growth of our students, and for further developing our program. We also use the data in an aggregate form to proclaim our reputation and leadership as a top program and to effectively compete with our rival institutions (e.g., Berkeley, University of Michigan, etc.), for recruitment and admission of top 5% applicants applying for admission into a doctoral program

2010 Currently preparing UCAR Review

https://sowkweb.usc.edu/social-work-programs/msw/msw-core-competencies-learning-objectives

https://sowkweb.usc.edu/social-work-programs/msw/msw-core-competencies-learning-objectives

https://dworakpeck.usc.edu/phd/degree-requirements/phd-student-learning-objectives


266

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)



(4)



(5)


(6)



program

specific teaching requirements. Tracking forms are distributed to mentors each spring and are completed in the course of meetings between the mentors and their students. We collect information about additional scholarly achievements such as grants, presentations at scientific meetings and publications. All the evidence is taken into account during the periodical student review meetings. If students fall behind benchmarks, they and their mentors are required to state how they will make up these deficiencies in a written plan with a specified projected timeline on completion of task. The student’s faculty mentor must submit a written report to the Doctoral Committee on each student’s current degree progress in the program and include special accomplishments e.g., published papers, conference presentations, awards, grants, etc. In addition, the Doctoral Committee meets annually to review each student’s progress in the program. Each student in the program receives annually a written letter about their progress in the program.

Mentoring is a pivotal function in the doctoral program. Faculty Mentors help students develop their distinctive substantive focus in the doctoral program, encourage students to collaborate with other faculty members, make certain they have satisfied the program’s requirements, provide the utmost for educational enrichment, and help them build their professional portfolio for an academic career.

Doctorate of Social Work (DSW)

Yes DSW Student Handbook

Parallel to a dissertation, the DSW capstone project provides a guided opportunity to demonstrate the

Students complete an oral defense of their capstone project proposal prior to

For the oral defense of the capstone proposal, ratings from each Qualifying Assessment Committee

The original WSCUC approval was in


267

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)



(4)



(5)


(6)



program

DSW Program Web Site PLO

knowledge, skills and understanding that students have acquired throughout their course of study. The capstone project takes the form of a detailed proposal for action that solves a social problem connected with one of the Grand Challenges for Social Work. The final Capstone Deliverable includes three broad components: a written assessment and analysis, a prototype for the proposed solution, and an oral defense.

candidacy. The oral defense is evaluated by a committee of DSW faculty, chaired by the instructor of the first capstone course. This Qualifying Assessment is comprised of the student’s written capstone proposal and its oral defense. Students complete a second oral defense prior to their completion of their final semester. The oral defense is evaluated by a committee of DSW faculty, chaired by the instructor of their final capstone course. This final Capstone Assessment is comprised of all three components of the Capstone Deliverables.

member is averaged to produce a final score for the student’s first oral defense. For the oral defense of the capstone project, ratings from each Capstone Assessment Committee member is averaged to produce a final score for the student’s oral defense. The oral defense contributes the majority of credit toward the student’s final grade in a mandatory course in which they enroll during the final semester.

2016. The next program review has been scheduled for Spring 2020, with site visitors coming in academic year 20-21.

Master of Science in Nursing (MSN)

Yes The American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) identifies nine essentials in master’s education in nursing. The AACN Essentials are core for all master’s programs in nursing and provide the necessary curricular elements and framework. They

· Article Critiques · Cases Studies · Case Papers · Case Presentations · Clinical Practicum/Evaluation · Exams · Group Projects · Health Policy Issue Briefs · Homework Assignments · Integrative Reviews · Literature Reviews · Rapid Critical Appraisals · On-campus Intensives · Success Rates on Board Exams

The Evaluations Committee is responsible for monitoring the collection of the MSN-FNP programmatic evaluations necessary to meet the standards set forth by the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE). This includes but is not limited to: · Program effectiveness · Couse evaluations · FNP program

completion rate

Information from the Evaluation Committee is regularly shared in monthly departmental faculty meetings. This information is also used by the Curriculum Committee and Clinical Placements Committee to consider curriculum and programmatic revisions as needed.

Program first approved in 2016. Not yet applicable.

https://msw.usc.edu/online/doctorate-social-work/dsw-student-learning-objectives/

https://www.aacnnursing.org/Portals/42/Publications/MastersEssentials11.pdf





268

Program

(1)


outcomes been

developed?

(2)


published?

(Please specify)

(3)



(4)



(5)


(6)



program

delineate the outcomes expected for all graduates from nursing programs at the Master’s level. PLO link

· Certification pass rates · Employment data · Clinical practicum

experience · Preceptor satisfaction · Employer satisfaction · Alumni achievements · Faculty outcomes

https://nursing.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2020/09/MSN-FNP-Program-Competencies_Terminal_Objectives.2020.03.05.pdf

wascuc table 7.1 inventory of educational effectiveness

Documents