Degree Program Assessment Reports

1. Educational Psychology graduate students are knowledgeable about learning and development, inquiry methods, and student assessment.
2. Educational Psychology graduate students have inquiry skills to conduct scholarly research effectively.
3. Educational Psychology graduate students present scholarly research effectively.
4. Educational Psychology graduate students model the ethical treatment of research participants.

Department Website URL:
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:

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

Create/modify/discuss program learning assessment procedures (e.g., SLOs, curriculum map, mechanism to collect student work, rubric, survey)
Collect/evaluate student work/performance to determine SLO achievement
Collect/analyze student self-reports of SLO achievement via surveys, interviews, or focus groups
Use assessment results to make programmatic decisions (e.g., change course content or pedagogy, design new course, hiring)
Investigate curriculum coherence. This includes investigating how well courses address the SLOs, course sequencing and adequacy, the effect of pre-requisites on learning achievement.
Investigate other pressing issue related to student learning achievement for the program (explain in question 7)
Other:

Direct evidence of student learning (student work products)

Artistic exhibition/performance
Assignment/exam/paper completed as part of regular coursework and used for program-level assessment
Capstone work product (e.g., written project or non-thesis paper)
Exam created by an external organization (e.g., professional association for licensure)
Exit exam created by the program
IRB approval of research
Oral performance (oral defense, oral presentation, conference presentation)
Portfolio of student work
Publication or grant proposal
Qualifying exam or comprehensive exam for program-level assessment in addition to individual student evaluation (graduate level only)
Supervisor or employer evaluation of student performance outside the classroom (internship, clinical, practicum)
Thesis or dissertation used for program-level assessment in addition to individual student evaluation
Other 1: Thesis or Plan B project proposal
Other 2: Final presentation of thesis or Plan B project

Indirect evidence of student learning

Alumni survey that contains self-reports of SLO achievement
Employer meetings/discussions/survey/interview of student SLO achievement
Interviews or focus groups that contain self-reports of SLO achievement
Student reflective writing assignment (essay, journal entry, self-assessment) on their SLO achievement.
Student surveys that contain self-reports of SLO achievement
Other 1:
Other 2:

Program evidence related to learning and assessment
(more applicable when the program focused on the use of results or assessment procedure/tools in this reporting period instead of data collection)

Assessment-related such as assessment plan, SLOs, curriculum map, etc.
Program or course materials (syllabi, assignments, requirements, etc.)
Other 1:
Other 2:

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:

We wanted to know whether candidates were knowledgeable about learning and development, inquiry methods, and student assessment (SLO 1). 

Eleven 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.  For their contextualization of the research question within the literature review, 60% received an exemplary rating. For the statement of the research question and the organization of the writing, 50% received exemplary ratings. Regarding compliance with APA style, 80% were rated as satisfactory, as opposed to exemplary.

Eleven students completed their master’s Plan B or thesis final papers, and all receive satisfactory or exemplary ratings for all components. In three areas (statement of the problem, contextualizing the question within the literature review, and incorporating faculty members’ feedback), 91% of candidates received exemplary ratings. In two areas, both having to do with writing (organization and APA style), 64% of candidates received exemplary ratings.

Eight students self-reported about the extent to which the program helped them to be more knowledgeable in the field. All of the students agreed that the program helped them to become more knowledgeable in the field. Seventy five percent (n=6) reported that the program helped them to grow as professionals, and 90% (n=7) agreed that the program helped them to develop their writing skills.

We wanted to know whether candidates had inquiry skills to conduct scholarly research effectively (SLO 2).

All of the 11 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, for which 100% of students were exemplary. Ratings for the research design indicate that 67% received exemplary ratings. For ratings for procedures and data analysis, 60% were satisfactory, as opposed to exemplary.

For the final method section, all 11 students received satisfactory or exemplary ratings for all components. the strongest aspect was the description of the participants, with 100% rated as exemplary. With regard to the description of procedures and incorporating feedback from faculty members, 91% of candidates were rated as exemplary. For research design, 73% were rated as exemplary. Ratings for data analysis were the lowest of all areas, with 55% of candidates rated as exemplary.

Of the eight students who completed the exit survey, 88% (n=7) agreed that the program helped them to develop ability to apply research skills.

We wanted to know whether candidates could present scholarly research effectively (SLO 3). 

Eleven students presented their theses or Plan B projects, and all received satisfactory or exemplary ratings for all components. All of the students were rated exemplary on the aspects of summary, clarity and organization, and attention to the audience. All but one student was rated as exemplary for adhering to time limits, and 73% received exemplary ratings for use of visual aids.

Of the eight students who completed the exit survey, 88% (n=7) agreed that the program helped them to develop their presentation skills.

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.

1. Assessment Procedures--The faculty reinforced the importance of rating students collaboratively with the students’ committee members (not just the advisor doing the ratings) and making timely ratings (soon after the proposals and papers are done and the presentations are made).

2. Course Changes—The faculty felt that students would better learn about research design and data analysis from the required research methods course (EDEP 608), if they took the required quantitative methods course (EDEP 601) before or concurrently with EDEP 608. They decided to make EDEP 601 a co-requisite of EDEP 608.

3. Advising—The faculty noted that as data analysis continues to be an areas in which the students are rated relatively lower, with regard to research skills, they will try to advise their students to take an additional course in either quantitative or qualitative research, depending on what the students are using in their projects. Candidates who use a quantitative approach will be advised to either enroll in EDEP 604: Multiple Regression or EDEP 618, Categorical Data Analysis, depending on the type of analysis they propose to conduct.