Unit: Curriculum Studies
Program: Curriculum Studies (MEd)
Degree: Master's
Date: Mon Oct 06, 2014 - 12:15:05 pm

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

The program is research-based and grounded in theory. Its goals are to:

  1. Develop well-informed and reflective practitioners.
  2. Enhance teachers’ knowledge and their instructional skills.
  3. Foster the application of new knowledge in the schools.
  4. Enhance teachers’ ability to understand and implement research.
  5. Encourage and increase the professionalism of teachers in Hawai‘i, as well as other States and nations of the Pacific Rim.
  6. Prepare those interested in entering doctoral programs in education.

Objectives of the CS program are that students:

  1. Increase knowledge in one or more areas of inquiry.
  2. Reflect on practice.
  3. Become better informed about the developmental and educational needs of children and adolescents from various communities.
  4. Become more skillful in developing educational programs to meet individual and group needs.
  5. Become more versatile in the use of a variety of teaching strategies.
  6. Learn about new issues and trends in their fields.
  7. Increase understanding of educational issues related to diversity and multiculturalism.
  8. Enhance ability to implement culturally responsive teaching practices.
  9. Investigate issues and trends in assessment.
  10. Increase understanding and ability to apply and conduct educational research.
  11. Acquire understanding of ethical dimensions of classroom research.
  12. Become more able to provide leadership in a classroom, school or school system. 

 

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

Department Website URL: https://coe.hawaii.edu/academics/curriculum-studies
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: https://coe.hawaii.edu/academics/curriculum-studies/med-cs
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: https://coe.hawaii.edu/academics/curriculum-studies/med/programs
UHM Catalog. Page Number: http://www.catalog.hawaii.edu/courses/departments/edcs.htm
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online:
Other:
Other:

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.

0%
1-50%
51-80%
81-99%
100%

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.)

Yes
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 College of Education is accredited by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), so our assessments address four CS program standards (please see Curriculum Map) in relation to the following NCATE standard:

Standard 1: Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Professional Dispositions

Candidates preparing to work in schools as teachers or other school professionals know and demonstrate the content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and skills, pedagogical and professional knowledge and skills, and professional dispositions necessary to help all students learn. Assessments indicate that candidates meet professional, state and institutional standards (Professional Standards for the Accreditation of Teacher Preparation Institutions, NCATE, 2008, p. 16). The five assessments reported here are connected to coursework in the MEd-CS program, as shown in our Curriculum Map. Assessors are asked to employ rubrics to make judgments of each student as Target, Acceptable or Unacceptable on relevant CS standards for each assessment. The essential question is “What percentages of students are judged as Target, Acceptable and Unacceptable on each standard within each assessment?

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: Embedded assignment/exam (completed as part of a course): RUBRICS FOR 5 COURSES, INCLUDING IRB APPROVAL OF RESEARCH

Indirect evidence: PROGRAM COMPLETER SURVEY

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

129 persons submitted evidence that was evaluated (228 course assignments and 25 program completer surveys)

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)
Dean/Director
Other:

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)
Other:

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

Direct Assessments: Rubrics

Of the five rubrics used, the EDCS 622 Review of the Literature had the highest percentage of students achieving target (n=14; Standard #1:100%, #2:93%, #3:100%). The lowest percentages receiving target were for EDCS Lesson Series: Curriculum Emphasis (n=68; Standard #2: 52%; #3 51%). None of the students who were assessed received unacceptable on any of the five rubrics.

Indirect Assessment: MEd-CS Program Completion Survey

Twenty-five program completers responded to this survey, which was sent to all graduating students.

Students provided their level of agreement (1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree) with statements regarding whether the MEd-CS had helped them in ten areas. Responses showed program completers agreed most strongly that the program had helped them: (1) grow as an educational professional  (4.84), (2) become more knowledgeable in their field (4.72), and (3) develop important new skills in their field (4.72). The three lowest scoring items were: (1) develop my knowledge of research methodology (4.36), (2) develop my ability to apply research skills (4.36), and (3) develop my presentation skills (4.24).

A second question dealt with program completers’ level of agreement with statements concerning their satisfaction with various aspects of the program. Items showing the highest level of agreement were: (1) supportive relationships with peers (4.8), (2) opportunity to collaborate with peers (4.8), (3) intellectual challenge and rigor of my courses (4.6), (4) relevance of assignments to my professional development (4.6), (5) quality of my instructors (4.6),  (6) supportiveness of faculty (4.6), and (7) relevance of course content to my professional development (4.56). Students were least satisfied with (1) length of time to complete the program (4.24), (2) availability of financial support for graduate study (3.96), and (3) availability of courses when I needed them (3.72).

As a result of their experiences in the MEd-CS program, these program completers would recommend the master’s program to other students (4.71). They also developed a sense of belonging to the Department (4.38), College (4.17) and UHM (4.21).

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

While all students performed at “target” or “acceptable” on all assessments, the EDCS Lesson Series: Curriculum Emphasis assessment was disappointing. As chair, I have recommended that faculty include the assessments in their course syllabi, go over rubrics with students, and use them for student self-evaluation and grading. Although this recommendation applies to all courses, it is particularly important with the Curriculum Emphasis assessment, since it highlights what we value as educators (e.g., active learning, place-based approaches, formative assessment).

Based on assessment results, our program is also revising our initial core course, EDCS 622 School Curriculum, to better prepare students for later courses. The revised course will focus on place-based education and other curriculum issues which are emphasized in our goals/assessments. Two faculty members are leading this process, with input from other program faculty at our monthly meetings. A committee has already met with COE technology staff in order to put the revised course online, and technology staff will present options at our October faculty meeting.

Although program completers agreed the MEd-CS degree had helped them acquire (1) knowledge of research methodology and (2) ability to apply research skills (4.36 on each item), these items received among the lowest ratings on question 2. The finding that students need more support in research is supported by the Curriculum Emphasis Rubric, in which 51% of students assessed reached target (with 49% acceptable). Therefore, our program faculty members will review the department’s two research courses in the near future.  

On the program level, the completer survey showed means slightly below “agree” for availability of: (1) financial support for graduate students (3.96) and (2) courses when they needed them (3.72). As chair, I am working to make sources of scholarships/financial aid more apparent in our publications. All faculty members also need to advocate for more graduate student funding. As for the availability of courses, faculty have asked students for feedback on whether MEd-CS class times and formats are convenient for them. In the future, we will also ask students whether courses are scheduled frequently enough to ensure their optimal progress through the program. (Our time to degree is 2.34, which is below the campus average.)

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.

Our criteria/expectations for the Curriculum Emphasis assessment are high and not easily achieved. In addition to a stronger initial course, more applied assignments may be needed to help students teach place-based lessons that consider the diverse needs of students.

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.