Unit: Educational Psychology
Program: Educational Psychology (MEd)
Degree: Master's
Date: Fri Oct 09, 2015 - 6:33:53 pm

1) Institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs) and Program Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs)

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

  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.

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

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:

3) Please review, add, replace, or delete the existing curriculum map.

Curriculum Map File(s) from 2015:

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 learning assessment activities between June 1, 2014 and September 30, 2015?

Yes
No (skip to question 16)

6) What best describes the program-level learning assessment activities that took place for the period June 1, 2014 to September 30, 2015? (Check all that apply.)

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:

7) Briefly explain the assessment activities that took place in the last 18 months.

Collect/evaluate student work/performance to determine SLO achievement

1. (Knowledge) Faculty members rated the literature reviews of candidates' theses and Plan B proposals and final papers to determine the extent to which they demonstrated expected bodies of knowledge.

2. (Skills) Faculty members rated candidates' theses and Plan B proposal and final paper method sections to determine the extent to which they demonstrated expected skills to conduct scholarly research.

3. (Skills) Faculty members rated candidates' theses and Plan B final presentations to determine the extent to which they demonstrated skills to present scholarly research effectively.

4. (Dispositions). Faculty members documented whether their advisees successfully completed an on-line course on the ethical treatment of human participants in research.

Collect/analyze student self-reports of SLO achievement via surveys, interviews, or focus groups

n their final semester of the students' program, the Dean's Office distributed an online survey which asked students to self report the extent to which the program helped them to become (a) more knowledgeable in the field and (b) more skillful in the field and in the areas of research, writing, and making professional presentations.

8) What types of evidence did the program use as part of the assessment activities checked in question 6? (Check all that apply.)

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:

9) State the number of students (or persons) who submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.

Ratings of candidates' thesis or Plan B Proposals (required of all students): 11

Ratings of candidates' thesis or Plan B final papers (required of all students):: 11

Candidates' evaluated for completion of the human subjects' training (required of all students): 11

Ratings of candidates final thesis or Plan B presentations (required of all students): 11

Candidates self-report on on-line survey (all students recruited in their last semester): 8

10) 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:

11) 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: Director of Assessment compiled survey results

12) Summarize the results of the assessment activities checked in question 6. For example, report the percent of students who achieved each SLO.

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.

13) What best describes how the program used the results? (Check all that apply.)

Assessment procedure changes (SLOs, curriculum map, rubrics, evidence collected, sampling, communications with faculty, etc.)
Course changes (course content, pedagogy, courses offered, new course, pre-requisites, requirements)
Personnel or resource allocation changes
Program policy changes (e.g., admissions requirements, student probation policies, common course evaluation form)
Students' out-of-course experience changes (advising, co-curricular experiences, program website, program handbook, brown-bag lunches, workshops)
Celebration of student success!
Results indicated no action needed because students met expectations
Use is pending (typical reasons: insufficient number of students in population, evidence not evaluated or interpreted yet, faculty discussions continue)
Other:

14) Please briefly describe how the program used the results.

  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).
  1. 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.
  1. 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.

15) Beyond the results, were there additional conclusions or discoveries? This can include insights about assessment procedures, teaching and learning, and great achievements regarding program assessment in this reporting period.

The faculty noted that the SLO #4; Modeling ethical treatment of research participants was not covered in the student exit survey. They will discuss with the Dean's Office whether items can be changed to include this area. They also noticed that some students did not complete the survey, so in the future, they will emphasize the importance of the survey to their advisees, in order to encourage survey completion.

16) If the program did not engage in assessment activities, please explain.