Unit: Education (multiple departments)
Program: Education (PhD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Tue Oct 07, 2014 - 4:34:31 pm

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

The objectives of the program are

1. Knowledge.  Students will become knowledgeable in the broad issues of education and in the skills, knowledge and problems within their specialization area.  Students will develop an inquiring and critical approach to issues and possible solutions to problems in education.  The body of knowledge and specific objectives are developed on an individual basis in collaboration among the student, his/her advisor, and committee members. The doctoral program is unique in that students are expected to develop their knowledge of the field to the degree that they can understand the issues and problems in the field of education, and their specialization, in order to develop an inquiry project that will generate new knowledge in education. 

2. Research. Students will develop competencies in the broad issues of conducting and evaluating research in education, and develop the skills needed to develop a research problem and questions, design a study about a significant issue, collect appropriate data, analyze results and write a dissertation.  Students’ dissertation research must be on an original problem and contribute to the knowledge base in education.  The results of students  research will be disseminated internationally, nationally and locally, where appropriate, so that it may be utilized for the improvement of education.

3. Caring and Professional Ethics.  Students will develop a deep respect for the public trust that is invested in them as future intellectual and social leaders in the field of education.  Research that they conduct, or to which they refer in making recommendations, will be carefully vetted for accuracy, fairness, and beneficence regarding the clients, recipients, participants and the broader public good.  The program supports an attitude or disposition of caring or consideration for all people, and especially for students at every level and from various walks of life. 

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

Department Website URL: https://coe.hawaii.edu/graduate/doctoral
Student Handbook. URL, if available online:
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:
UHM Catalog. Page Number: 198-200
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.

How well are doctoral students achieving our program objectives in terms of breadth and depth of knowledge? (Obj. 1)

How do we know students are prepared to conceptualize and conduct research? (Obj. 2)

How do we support the development of students who understand ethical practice in conducting research and engaging in professional activities? (Obj. 1, 2, 3)

What do students think about overall program quality? (Obj. 1, 2, 3)

Should we revise our program objectives? (Obj. 1, 2, 3)

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:  Students' successful completion of a comprehensive examination, dissertation proposal (including an extensive review of the literature), and completion of the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) modules and approval from the UH Manoa Institutional Review Board (IRB) to conduct research. These meet assessment goals 1 (Knowledge), 2 (Research) and 3 (Caring and Professional Ethics).

Indirect Evidence:  Upon completion of their Ph.D. program, students complete a survey on the quality of the program and how well they felt the program prepared them to advance in their career.  This also addresses all three assessment goals.

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

Fall 2013:         10 Students advanced to candidacy

                          3  Students graduated

 

Spring/Summer 2014          30  Students advanced to candidacy

                                            31  Students graduated

Completer surveys returned: 

                 

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.

In terms of student progress in the PhD program, three main questions were examined:

How well are doctoral students achieving our program objectives in terms of breadth and depth of knowledge? (Obj. 1)

How do we know students are prepared to conceptualize and conduct research? (Obj. 2)

How do we support the development of students who understand ethical practice in conducting research and engaging in professional activities? (Obj. 1, 2, 3)

During the 2013-14 assessment year, 40 students advanced from coursework to candidacy in the program, and 34 students successfully defended their dissertations and graduated.  This is an increase of over 40% from the previous years, suggesting that students are progressing in the program.

In examining the questions:

What do students think about overall program quality? (Obj. 1, 2, 3)

Should we revise our program objectives? (Obj. 1, 2, 3)

The results of the post-graduation survey (80% response rate) indicate that the program is doing well and students were highly satisfied with their experience at Manoa, however some students indicated they would like more support moving from the course-taking phase to completing their proposals and comprehensive examination.  In addition, they indicated a desire to have a capstone course that specifically prepares them to write a dissertation proposal.

 

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

The Graduate Faculty in Education is creating a capstone course to add to the Core program requirements (currently 15 credits consisting of 12 units of research and 3 units of internship) that will be taken in the last semester of coursework, and that will require students to have a draft dissertation proposal completed at the time they complete coursework. 

In addition, each specialization will keep and monitor an annual progress form on its students, with advisers meeting at least annually with students who are not in the phase of active course-taking. 

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.

The GFE members discovered that the assessment process is heavily back-loaded.  That is, not much program assessment data focuses on students' course-taking experiences.  This is, in part, because each of the six (formerly seven, however Educational Technology now has its own PhD) specializations are programatically very different.  Still, the GFE is revising assessment for the 2014-15 program year to incorporate either one or two assessment data points during the course-taking phase of the program. 

Also, the GFE is working to see that each specialization admits new students based on the number of graduates to make sure there is an appropriate proportion of faculty to students to better meet student advising needs.

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.