Unit: Institute for Teacher Education
Program: Education: Teaching (MEdT)
Degree: Master's
Date: Tue Sep 30, 2014 - 9:00:36 am

1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.

The ultimate goal of participation in the Master of Education in Teaching Program (MEdT) is a recommendation for licensure as an elementary or secondary school teacher in the State of Hawaii.

The MEdT program relies on Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium Standards (InTASC) to guide the assessment of our teacher candidates. For the remainder of the report we will refer to the university graduate students in our program as candidates to avoid confusing them with the students, elementary and secondary children and adolescents, that the candidates teach.

The following InTASC standards serve as student learning outcomes

Standard 1: Focuses on the Learner

Standard 2: Creates and maintains a safe and positive learning environment

Standard 3: Adapts to learner diversity

Standard 4: Fosters effective communication in the learning environment

Standard 5: Demonstrates knowledge of content

Standard 6: Designs and provides meaningful learning experiences

Standard 7: Uses active learning strategies

Standard 8: Uses assessment strategies

Standard 9: Demonstrates professionalism

Standard 10: Fosters parent and school community relationships


2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.

Department Website URL:
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: https://sites.google.com/a/hawaii.edu/medt-candidate-handbook/
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: NA

3) Select one option:

Curriculum Map File(s) from 2014:

4) For your program, the percentage of courses that have course SLOs explicitly stated on the syllabus, a website, or other publicly available document is as follows. Please update as needed.


5) Did your program engage in any program assessment activities between June 1, 2013 and September 30, 2014? (e.g., establishing/revising outcomes, aligning the curriculum to outcomes, collecting evidence, interpreting evidence, using results, revising the assessment plan, creating surveys or tests, etc.)

No (skip to question 14)

6) For the period between June 1, 2013 and September 30, 2014: State the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goals. Include the SLOs that were targeted, if applicable.

The assessment system for the MEdT program is aligned with the College of Education’s goal to prepare educators who are knowledgeable, effective, and caring professionals.  By identifying the program standards to be addressed in each of our key program assessments, we are able to collect evidence of our candidates’ knowledge, skills, and dispositions throughout the program. 

The signature assessments containing the program SLOs for the MEdT Program are embedded within the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) Assessments. These assessments answer the questions: "What should teacher candidates know and be able to do?" and "How well did our teacher candidates master the standards of the program?" The CAEP Assessments are crosswalked with the Interstate new Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Standards which have been approved by both the College of Education and the Hawaii Teacher Standards Board. InTASC standards serve as (ILOs) upon which SLOs are based for this teacher licensure graduate program. CAEP Assessments including the Praxis II content test ( knowledge), student teaching evaluation (skills), and dispositions. Artifacts for the CAEP assessments are created within program courses. Each course in the MEdT Program has an identified major focus supporting specific SLOs. A menu of assignments that best supports a program standard along with a scoring rubric was developed for each course. The "standardization" provides assurance that all candidates in the MEdT Program are held to the same standard and consistency in assessing student knowledge essential to a particular course.

7) State the type(s) of evidence gathered to answer the assessment question and/or meet the assessment goals that were given in Question #6.

-Direct evidence (Assessments of student learning – your key program assessments – Include brief description of 3 assessments to show evidence of knowledge, skills, and dispositions)

                1. Praxis II: Candidates must pass this standardized, nationally-normed examination of content knowledge. The data for the Praxis II is available through HEOA Title II reporting. Data is reported for AY 2013-14 (Fall 2013, Spring 2014, Summer 2014). 

                2. Student Teaching Evaluation: Candidates demonstrate proficiency in their field experience including classroom management, instruction, assessment, communication, professionalism, and collaboration. Data is reported for AY 2013-14 (Fall 2013, Spring 2014, Summer 2014).

                3. Professional Dispositions:  Candidates must demonstrate professional dispositions, including professionalism, diversity, communication, collaboration, and reflection. Data is reported for AY 2013-14 (Fall 2013, Spring 2014, Summer 2014).

-Indirect evidence: Each semester, program completer surveys are distributed by the Dean’s Office to our candidates in their final semester of the program. This data is published in reports aggregated by program in the COE Intranet and is also reported on the COE public website, “Measuring Our Success.” The website address is (https://coe.hawaii.edu/measuring-our-success).

8) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.

MEdT Elementary, N=18

MEdT English, N=3

MEdT Mathematics, N=3

MEdT Science, N=6

MEdT Social Studies, N=2

MEdT Total, N=32

(Please note that sampling techniques were not needed due to the relatively small number of candidates so this report is based on the entire population.)

9) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? (Check all that apply.)

Course instructor(s)
Faculty committee
Ad hoc faculty group
Department chairperson
Persons or organization outside the university
Faculty advisor
Advisors (in student support services)
Students (graduate or undergraduate)

10) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? (Check all that apply.)

Used a rubric or scoring guide
Scored exams/tests/quizzes
Used professional judgment (no rubric or scoring guide used)
Compiled survey results
Used qualitative methods on interview, focus group, open-ended response data
External organization/person analyzed data (e.g., external organization administered and scored the nursing licensing exam)

11) For the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goal(s) stated in Question #6:
Summarize the actual results.

Results are based on three assessments: Praxis II Content Tests, Student Teaching Evaluations, and Professional Dispositions.

1. Praxis II Content Test (Addressing InTASC Standard 5: Demonstrates Knowledge of Content)

All MEdT candidates passed the appropriate Praxis II content test according to their identified level or subject specialty field. Maximum score for any given Praxis II content test is 200. Here are results by MEdT candidate subgroups:

MEdT Praxis II Content Knowledge Test


Total Test Takers



Average Score

Minimum Passing Score








English Language, Literature












Science: Biology






Science: Chemistry






Science: General Science






Social Studies








2. Student Teaching Evaluation (Addressing InTASC Standards 1-10)

MEdT Elementary (N=8)

All MEdT Elementary completers achieved passing scores on each criteria of the elemetary student teaching evaluation analytic rubric. Rubric criteria were aligned with the program standards, and the SLOs for each criteria were fully aligned with the standard. Six scores (75%) were Target scores and two scores (25%) achieved Acceptable scores on a scale of Target, Acceptable, and Unacceptable. Target and Acceptable scores were passing. 

MEdT Secondary (N=13)

All MEdT Secondary completers achieved passing scores on each criteria of the secondar subject specific student teaching evaluation analytic rubric. This evaluation consists of two instruments for the secondary candidates. The first is a general evaluation rubric completed for each secondary candidate. The second instrument is a rubric designed for each of the four subject specific areas (English, mathematics, science, social studies). Both rubrics are aligned with the program standards, and the SLOs for each criteria were fully aligned with the standard. For the general student teaching rubric, twelve scores (92%) were Target and one score (8%) achieved Acceptable scores on a scale of Target, Acceptable, and Unacceptable. Target and Acceptable scores were passing. For the subject specific rubrics, each candidate achieved Target scores for all rubric criteria. 


3. Professional Dispositions (Addressing InTASC Standard 9: Demonstrates Professionalism)

MEdT Elementary (N=29)* 

Approximately 90% of the scores were at the Target, 7% achieved Acceptable, and 3% were Unacceptable. The total passing score rate was 97% which is well above the 80% profiency benchmark for any given standard. A single score for "Professional, Collaborative and Ethical Conduct" achieved an unacceptable score as did "Professional Work Habits" and the "Ability to Identify Opportunities for Collaborative and Leadership Roles as Members of a Team."  

MEdT Secondary (N=24)*

All of the scores for the secondary candidates were either Target or Acceptable thus all of the secondary candidates achieved passing scores for all criteria for the Disposition SLOs. The range of target scores was 71%-96% and the range of Acceptable scores was 29%-4%. The SLO with the best outome (96% target) was Professional Reflection and Growth - "Engagement in professional experiences, and reflection on them, to enhance each candidate's professional growth, including a knowledge of professional organizations in the discipline." The SLOs with the lowest outcomes (71% target) were Respect for Diversity - "Understanding and ability to demonstrate a commitment to equitable and ethical treatment of all students and colleagues" as well as "Ability to identiy opportunities for collaborative and leadership roles a smembers of a team."  


* The N values are higher for this assessment since the scores are based on MEdT program noncompleters (year 1 candidates) as well as program competers (year 2 MEdT candidates) who were assessed during AY 2013-2014.


12) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.

Beginning in August 2014, the MEdT program is now completing content deficiency remediation forms with MEdT secondary candidates to recommend and require content coursework to broaden their content knowledge within their subject field. This Content Deficiency Remediation form was drafted and administered after it was determined that the Praxis II Content Test score outcomes reflect a fairly narrow range of subject matter understanding. A candidate may achieve a passing score on a Praxis II Content test and still have knowledge gaps in related content fields that are needed for successful teaching. For example, an MEdT secondary science candidate may have passed the Praxis II Biology Content test, yet have insufficient study in the earth sciences. Since Hawaii Teacher Standards Board provides broadfield licensure in science (grades 6-12), the program chair and faculty are now using the Content  form during candidate admission to review and in some cases recommend or require content coursework for secondary candidates on a case-by-case basis.

The lowest scoring disposition SLO dealt with Respect for Diversity with 71% Target and 29% Acceptable for the MEdT Secondary group. Due to this outcome, we have modified our diversity signature assignments to include Frogs and Moths Diversity Learning Activity (Baldwin and Evenstad, 2010). The MEdT Program has also sent a faculty member to a five-day Diversity Training Workshop in June 2014 to learn facilitation skills to promote meaningful discussions among MEdT candidates during cohort seminars regarding issues such as racism, sexism, ableism, and other forms of prejudice and discrimimation that can be found within schools and classrooms. The resulting discussions not only target Respect for Diversity but also the "Effective Communication and collaboration" that scored relatively low (75% Target and 25% Acceptable) on the secondary Professional Disposition. These curricular and instructional modifications are helping us better support candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions targeting "Respect for Diversity."     



13) Beyond the results, were there additional conclusions or discoveries?
This can include insights about assessment procedures, teaching and learning, program aspects and so on.

An area where we have implemented changes is in revising the Student Teaching Evaluation Forms to make them more user friendly for University Supervisors and Mentor Teachers. The forms have maintained alignment with InTASC Standards 1-10, but the new forms that we are now using are provided electronic form-fillable formats. This change is making it easier for faculty to upload assessment outcomes into the Student Information System (SIS) database that we use to manage assessment data. Along with the revisions to the Student Teaching Evaluation Forms, we have imbedded the Dispositions assessment directly into the Student Teaching Evaluation which facilitates the evaluation of candidate dispositions by both the University Supervisor and the School-Based Mentor Teacher. 


14) If the program did not engage in assessment activities, please explain.
Or, if the program did engage in assessment activities, please add any other important information here.