Program: Educational Psychology (MEd)
Degree: Master's
Date: Fri Oct 31, 2014 - 10:44:18 am
1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.
- Educational Psychology graduate students are knowledgeable about learning and development, inquiry methods, and student assessment.
- Educational Psychology graduate students have inquiry skills to conduct scholarly research effectively.
- Educational Psychology graduate students present scholarly research effectively.
- Educational Psychology graduate students model the ethical treatment of research participants.
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Department Website URL: http://www.coe.hawaii.edu/edep Student Handbook. URL, if available online: https://coe.hawaii.edu/documents/2371
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: UHM Catalog. Page Number: Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: Other: Other: 3) Select one option:
- File (03/16/2020)
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.
We wanted to know whether candidates were knowledgable about learning and development, inquiry methods, and student assessment (SLO 1).
We wanted to know whether candidates had inquiry skills to conduct scholarly research effectively (SLO 2).
We wanted to know whether candidates could present scholarly research effectively (SLO 3).
We wanted to know if candidates modeled the ethical treatment of research participants (SLO 4).
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.
We collected candidates’ proposals and final MEd papers (Plan B or thesis) and analyzed the literature reviews and methods sections of those documents. We also collected information on whether or not students had passed an online ethics course by the National Institutes of Health (for students who entered the program before fall 2012) or The Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) Program for the Protection of Human Research Subjects (for students who entered the program in fall 2012 or later).
8) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
There were six candidates for whom evidence was evaluated. These were all of the candidates who completed proposals and/or final master's papers (Plan B or thesis).
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.
We wanted to know whether candidates were knowledgable about learning and development, inquiry methods, and student assessment (SLO 1).
Five students completed their master’s Plan B or thesis proposals. All of them received satisfactory or exemplary ratings for different aspects of the proposal literature review. Most of the students, 60%, were rated as satisfactory, as opposed to exemplary, for the statement and context of the literature review and 80% were rated as satisfactory, as opposed to exemplary, for the organization and style and writing.
Six students completed their master’s Plan B or thesis final papers. All of them received satisfactory or exemplary ratings for different aspects of their final literature review. Almost 70% of the students were rated exemplary in four of the five categories and satisfactory in the fifth. As a group, 83% were rated exemplary for statement, context, style and writing and incorporating advisor’s or thesis committee’s comments and suggestions into their revision and 67% were rated exemplary for organization.
We wanted to know whether candidates had inquiry skills to conduct scholarly research effectively (SLO 2).
All of the five candidates who wrote proposals were rated as satisfactory or exemplary for the different aspects of their proposal method section. The strongest aspect was the description of the participants, as 100% of students were exemplary. Ratings for the research design indicate that 20% received exemplary, and for procedures and data analysis were both 40% exemplary.
For the final method section, the strongest aspect was the description of the participants, with 100% rating exemplary. On aspects of research design, procedures, data analysis, and revision, 83% were exemplary. This represents improvement over the last two years.
We wanted to know whether candidates could present scholarly research effectively (SLO 3).
Six students made their master’s presentation. All of the students were rated exemplary on the aspects of summary, clarity and organization, and visual aids. All but one student rated exemplary in attention to audience, and 67% of students rated exemplary in adhering to time limits.
We wanted to know if candidates modeled the ethical treatment of research participants (SLO 4).
All students successfully completed an on-line course on the ethical treatment of human participants in research.
12) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.
The faculty is pleased that students demonstrated improvement from last year in final presentation, final methods and final paper literature review. We provide students with detailed feedback on their proposals and students seem to address and incorporate the feedback which we believe, contributed to better quality final products. While all of the students recieved at minimum, a rating of satisfactory, we will continue to work closely with students to assist them in improving their proposals and their final paper and presentation. We will also continue our advising practice of recommending that students complete at least two research methods courses.
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.
Beginning in Fall 2013 all students enrolled in the required research methods course were introduced to the rubrics that are used for assessment of their proposal, final paper, and presentation. Components of the rubrics were used for various assignments in the required course, thus providing students with early familiarity of the requirements, experience rating themselves through self-assessment in the course, and the experience of being rated by the course instructor. This strategy along with continued individual advisement should contribute to better outcomes for the products that are assessed.