Program: Education: Teaching (MEdT)
Degree: Master's
Date: Mon Nov 16, 2015 - 4:44:50 pm
1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.
The ultimate goal of participation in the Master of Education in Teaching Program (MEdT) is a recommendation for licensure as an elementary or secondary school teacher in the State of Hawaii.
The MEdT program relies on Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium Standards (InTASC) to guide the assessment of our teacher candidates. For the remainder of the report we will refer to the university graduate students in our program as candidates to avoid confusing them with the students, elementary and secondary children and adolescents, that the candidates teach.
The following InTASC standards serve as student learning outcomes
Standard 1: Learner Development
Standard 2: Learning Differences
Standard 3: Learning Environment
Standard 4: Content Knowledge
Standard 5: Application of Content
Standard 6: Assessment
Standard 7: Planning for Instruction
Standard 8: Instructional Strategies
Standard 9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice
Standard 10: Leadership and Collaboration
1) Institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs) and Program Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs)
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Department Website URL: https://sites.google.com/a/hawaii.edu/medt-candidate-handbook/reference Student Handbook. URL, if available online: https://sites.google.com/a/hawaii.edu/medt-candidate-handbook/
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: UHM Catalog. Page Number: Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: NA Other: http://www.htsb.org/standards/teacher/ Other: 3) Please review, add, replace, or delete the existing curriculum map.
- 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 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.
Candidates' student teaching is evaluated with the summative student eaching assessment for the Master of Education in Teaching. This assessment is completed by the mentor teacher and/or the UH field supervisor. Candidates compelete student teaching during the third semester of the four semester MEdT Program. For this reporting period, the student teaching evaluation outcomes are from the Fall 2014 semester. (Student teaching is completed only during the fall semesters in the MEdT Program.) The student teaching assessmemnt consists of the student teaching evaluation and the professional dispositions assessment. This assessment is cross-walked with all 10 of the InTASC Standards that serve as the program's SLOs. The student teaching evaluation scores candidates on each of the each 10 InTASC standards. The professional dispositions evaluation emphasis InTASC Standards 2 (Learning Differences) , 9 (Professional Learning & Ethical Practice), and 10 (Leadership and Evaluation). Many of the InTASC standards are evaluated more than once with the combined evaluations found on the student teaching assessment.
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: Other 2: 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.
Student teaching assessment scores were obtained for 18 elementary education teacher candidates and 12 secondary education teacher candidates who were enrolled in ITE 610 (Student Teaching) during the Fall 2014 semester. (The student teaching evaluations were completed and submitted to the MEdT program office by December 2014). The elementary teacher candidates were evaluated with the Student Teaching Evaluation ACEI Standards that contained 16 performance criteria on a rubric with three levels of performance outcomes scored either Target, Acceptable, or Unacceptable) for each of the performance criteria. The Elementary Student Teaching Evaluation also contained the Professional Dispositions Rubric . The dispositions evaluation contained 6 criteria with three levels of performance outcomes (Target-Acceptable-Unacceptable) for each performance outcome.
Likewise, the Secondary Student Teaching Evaluation contained 10 performance criteria on a rubric with three levels of performance outcomes scored either Target, Acceptable, or Unacceptable. The Elementary Student Teaching Evaluation also contained the Professional Dispositions Rubric. The dispositions evaluation contained 6 criteria with three levels of performance outcomes (Target-Acceptable-Unacceptable). The disposition rubric for the secondary candidates was identical to the disposition rubric for the elementary candidates. However, the student teaching evaluations for elementary and secondary candidates differed due to the developmental differences of children in elementary school classrooms and adolescents in secondary school classrooms. In spite of these differences, each of the student teaching evaluations (elementary and secondary) address each of the 10 InTASC standards that serve as program SLOs.
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: COE Director of Assessment (compiled survey results)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: 12) Summarize the results of the assessment activities checked in question 6. For example, report the percent of students who achieved each SLO.
All MEdT candidates (18 elementary and 12 secondary) met each of the InTASC Standards on both the student teaching and disposition evaluations in Fall 2014. (Scores of Target and Acceptable meet the standard; whereas a score of Unacceptable does not meet the standard.) The MEdT ASSESSMENT DATA ASSESSMENT CHART found below contains scores for each evaluation rubric criteria for elementary and secondary candidates on the elementary and secondary student teaching evaluations and the disposition evaluations.
The lowest score outcome was found on the MEdT Secondary Student Teaching Evaluation for P4a Professional Experiences that is one criteria for InTASC Standard 9 (Professional Learning and Ethical Practice). This performance was scored 33% target and 67% acceptable. The lowest score outcome for the MEdT Elementary candidates was from the professional dispositions assessment item addressing Professional Work Habits and Ethics. The elementary candidates scored 89% target and 11% acceptable for this criteria.
A general score distinction can be found when comparing the elementary and secondary candidates outcomes on the assessments. The elementary candidates achieved 95% target and 5% acceptable outcomes on the professional disposition scores. Alternatively, the secondary candidates scored lower than the elementary candidates. The secondary candidates scored 74% target and 26% acceptable for dispositions. When comparing the outcomes for the student teaching evaluations, the elementary candidates obtained 99% target and 1% acceptable and the secondary candidates scored 55% target and 45% acceptable. Although all of the scores show that both the elementary and secondary candidates met the InTASC standards, the elementary students are obtaining a higher degree of success with higher percentage of cadidates scoring target scores.
MEdT DATA ASSESSMENT CHART
(based on student teaching and dispositons outcomes)
| MEdT Data Fall 2014 | |||||
| Assessment | Criterion | Target | Acceptable | Unacceptable | Total N |
| MEdT ELEMENTARY Professional Dispositions Fall 2014 |
MEdT D1 Professional, Collaborative, and Ethical Conduct InTASC Standard 9 |
17 | 1 | 0 | 18 |
|
MEdT D2 Respect for Diversity InTASC Standard 2 |
18 | 0 | 0 | 18 | |
|
MEdT D3 Professional Work Habits and Ethics InTASC Standard 9 |
16 | 2 | 0 | 18 | |
|
MEdT D4 Effective Communication and Collaboration InTASC Standard 10 |
17 | 1 | 0 | 18 | |
|
MEdT D5 Professional Reflection and Growth InTASC Standard 9 |
17 | 1 | 0 | 18 | |
|
MEdT D6 Leadership InTASC Standard 10 |
18 | 0 | 0 | 18 | |
| MEdT ELEMENTARY Professional Dispositions Fall 2014 Total | Averages | 95% | 5% | 0% | |
| MEdT ELEMENTARY Student Teaching Evaluation Fall 2014 | 1. Develop (InTASC Standard 1) | 18 | 0 | 0 | 18 |
| 2.1 Read (InTASC Standard 4, 5, 7) | 18 | 0 | 0 | 18 | |
| 2.2 Sci (InTASC Standard 4, 5, 7) | 17 | 0 | 0 | 17 | |
| 2.3 Math (InTASC Standard 4, 5, 7) | 18 | 0 | 0 | 18 | |
| 2.4 Soc St (InTASC Standard 4, 5, 7) | 16 | 1 | 0 | 17 | |
| 2.5 Art (InTASC Standard 4, 5, 7) | 16 | 1 | 0 | 17 | |
| 2.6 Health (InTASC Standard 4, 5, 7) | 15 | 1 | 0 | 16 | |
| 2.7 PE (InTASC Standard 4, 5, 7) | 15 | 0 | 0 | 15 | |
| 3.1 Knowledge (InTASC Standard 1) | 18 | 0 | 0 | 18 | |
| 3.2 Diversity (InTASC Standard 2) | 18 | 0 | 0 | 18 | |
| 3.3 Critical think (InTASC Standard 5) | 17 | 1 | 0 | 18 | |
| 3.4 Active learn (InTASC Standard 3, 8) | 18 | 0 | 0 | 18 | |
| 3.5 Communicate (InTASC Standard 410) | 18 | 0 | 0 | 18 | |
| 4.0 Assess (InTASC Standard 6) | 18 | 0 | 0 | 18 | |
| 5.1 Professional (InTASC Standard 9) | 18 | 0 | 0 | 18 | |
| 5.2 Collaborate (InTASC Standard 10) | 18 | 0 | 0 | 18 | |
| MEdT ELEMENTARY Student Teaching Evaluation Fall 2014 Total | Averages | 99% | 1% | 0% | |
| MEdT SECONDARY Professional Dispositions Fall 2014 |
D1 Professional, Collaborative and Ethical Conduct InTASC Standard 9 |
10 | 2 | 0 | 12 |
|
MEdT D2 Respect for Diversity InTASC Standarde 2 |
7 | 5 | 0 | 12 | |
|
MEdT D3 Professional Work Habits and Ethics InTASC Standard 9 |
9 | 3 | 0 | 12 | |
|
MEdT D4 Effective Communication and Collaboration InTASC Standard 10 |
10 | 2 | 0 | 12 | |
|
MEdT D5 Professional Reflection and Growth InTASC Standard 9 |
11 | 1 | 0 | 12 | |
|
MEdT D6 Leadership InTASC Standard 10 |
6 | 6 | 0 | 12 | |
| MEdT SECONDARY Professional Dispositions Fall 2014 Total | Averages | 74% | 26% | 0% | |
| MEdT SECONDARY Student Teaching Evaluation Fall 2014 | P2 Content Pedagogy (InTASC Standard 1, 4) | 9 | 3 | 0 | 12 |
| P3 Learning Environment (InTASC Standard 2, 3, 7) | 6 | 6 | 0 | 12 | |
| P3a Motivation (InTASC Standard 3, 8) | 7 | 5 | 0 | 12 | |
| P3b Assessment (InTASC Standard 6) | 7 | 5 | 0 | 12 | |
| P3c Strategies (InTASC Standard 4, 5, 8) | 6 | 6 | 0 | 12 | |
| P4 Professional K&S (InTASC Standard 9) | 6 | 6 | 0 | 12 | |
| P4a Professional Experiences (InTASC Standard 9) | 4 | 8 | 0 | 12 | |
| P4b Equitable, Ethics (InTASC Standard 9) | 7 | 5 | 0 | 12 | |
| P4c Collaboration (InTASC Standard 10) | 7 | 5 | 0 | 12 | |
| P4d Teaming (InTASC Standard 10) | 7 | 5 | 0 | 12 | |
| MEdT SECONDARY Student Teaching Evaluation Fall 2014 Total | Averages | 55% | 45% | 0% |
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.
Since all of the students met the InTASC standards as reflected on the student teaching and professional dispositions evaluations found on the student teaching assessment, the faculty chose to continue the similar candidate assignments for field experiences for the upcoming school year. The secondary faculty were asked to focus on InTASC Standard 9 Professional Learning and Ethical Practices to see if a higher percentage of candidates can qualify for target scores on the rubric criteria that address this standard on the student teaching assessment. Additionally, the elementary faculty were asked to critique and reflect on their scoring practices to guard against a positive scoring bias that could negatively impact fairness when applying the student teaching assessment with elementary candidates.
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.
Due to the impending implementation of a state mandated performance assessment for candidates seeking teaching licensure, the MEdT program is in the process of piloting the educative Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA). The edTPA will serve as the student teaching evaluation begining with MEdT cohorts that complete student teaching in Fall 2018. The edTPA has been cross-walked with the InTASC standards and has been found to address Standards 1-9. The only InTASC standard not addressed by the edTPA is Standard 10 Leadership and Collaboration. During this reporting period, two MEdT cohorts designed and implemented a few signature assignments and assessments to develop planning and instructional strategies to prepare candidates for the edTPA. These signature assignments focused on planning (edTPA Task 1) and instruction (Task 2).
16) If the program did not engage in assessment activities, please explain.
na