Unit: Learning Design and Technology
Program: Educational Tech (MEd)
Degree: Master's
Date: Mon Nov 16, 2015 - 3:07:05 pm

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

The Department of Learning Desgin and Technology (LTEC) recently underwent a name change from Educational Technology (ETEC). The department delivers courses and programs at multiple levels including: undergraduate, masters-level graduate, and a doctoral emphasis. At the master’s level, our Masters in Learning Design and Technology is designed for candidates in many learning environments including K-12 and higher education, government, business, industry, and health occupations, whether they are teachers, trainers, developers, administrators, or support personnel. The program places emphasis on applications of technology in educational settings rather than just technical skills. Individuals from diverse backgrounds immediately apply what they learn to their particular contexts. Upon graduation, these new professionals will have a clearer vision of how to prepare learners for the future.

The University of Hawaii and the College of Education support the use of national standards to guide programs; therefore, LTEC has chosen to incorporate Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) standards into the objectives for our program. Recently, the Hawaii Department of Education has incorporated technology standards within content standards so no longer includes educational technology as a discrete category. Since LTEC students come from a broad variety of professions, AECT standards were determined as the best fit for our program. Students are provided the following information in the UH catalog, on the website, and in advising documents.

The department has set the following student learning outcomes for its graduate students based on national standards for accreditation from the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT):

1.    Design – Proficiency in instructional design, the systematic approach to designing educational/instructional systems, materials, and processes, including analyzing, designing, developing, implementing, and evaluating.

2.    Development - Demonstration of major instructional models and their technological applications to develop instructional materials and experiences using print, multimedia, computer-based, and integrated technologies.

3.    Utilization - Application of principles and theories of media utilization, diffusion, implementation, and policymaking, as well as, the attitudes, ethics, and, interpersonal and communication skills required for active involvement in appropriate professional organizations and community services.

4.    Management - Ability to plan, organize, coordinate, and supervise instructional technology by applying principles of project, resource, delivery system, and information management.

5   Evaluation – Capability of planning and executing research using knowledge of the existing body of research in the field, and, ability to evaluate the adequacy of instruction and learning by applying principles of problem analysis, criterion-referenced measurement, formative and summative evaluation, and long-range planning.


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: http://go.hawaii.edu/hN
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: https://coe.hawaii.edu/academics/learning-design-technology/gcert-ltec-colt
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: Presentation and handouts during New Student Orientation
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: NA
Other: Advising Documents

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.


5) Did your program engage in any program learning assessment activities between June 1, 2014 and September 30, 2015?

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)

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

1. (Knowledge) Review of Literature: Candidates demonstrate their acquisition of knowledge by synthesizing and critically reviewing literature relevant to a topic of their choice. Data is reported for AY 2014-15.

2. (Skills) Leadership/Organization Culminating Project: Candidates demonstrate an analytic capacity that is informed by theory, research, and practice to solve organizational problems and generate policy. Data is reported for AY 2014-15.

3. (Dispositions) Application to Human Studies Program: Candidates file an application with the University of Hawai‘i’s Human Studies Program in order for that committee to scrutinize each candidate’s proposed study to ensure it meets all appropriate ethical considerations. Data is reported for AY 2014-15.

Collect/analyze student self-reports of SLO achievement via surveys:

Each semester, program completer surveys are distributed by the Dean’s Office to our students in their final semester of the program. This data is published in reports aggregated by program in the COE Intranet and is also reported on the COE public website, “Measuring Our Success.”

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.

A total of 12 assessment rubrics were submitted by 6 different instructors teaching 12 course sections (5 different courses). The total number of students assessed during FALL 2014 semeseter was 80 students and for SPRING 2015 semester, 51 students, for a total of 131 students for AY 2014-15.


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)

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)

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

The assessment data shows that our master’s candidates have performed well in all three major areas: content knowledge; professional and pedagogical knowledge, skills and dispositions; and student learning. It has also been shown that the assessment supports the fulfillment of all five AECT standards for master’s preparation: design, development, utilization, management and evaluation.

Content Knowledge

Content knowledge is measured through the assessments for the Practicum Project and Paper. The Practicum Project and Paper assessment items are primarily aligned with the Design and Management standards of AECT. While our candidates' content knowledge is consistently assessed in all of the courses in the program, and especially in the 6 required courses, the master's project and paper are considered the best measures for overall content knowledge in Educational Technology.

Candidates have done remarkably well in meeting all of the standards for content knowledge with a 100% success rate. Much of the success may be due to the long process involved in completing both products, where ample opportunity for peer and faculty feedback to the candidate is provided.

Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge, Skills and Dispositions

The assessments for professional and pedagogical knowledge, skills and dispositions are determined from rubric scores from the Front-end Analysis conducted in LTEC 600 - Theory & Practice in Ed Tech and LTEC 687- Instructional Development Practicum. Between the two courses, all of five AECT Standards are covered: Design, Development, Management and Evaluation. The total scores for each course fall well into the “acceptable” and “target” range indicating that 100% of the students in general are meeting standards in professional and pedagogical knowledge, skills and dispositions. Our assessments show that both the on-campus and online cohorts are well aligned, especially in cases where two instructors teach the same course. Assessment outcomes for these courses are consistent between on-campus and online students. Currently, candidates receive feedback from the course instructors and proceed to improve accordingly. Between the initial semester assessment, the Front-end Analysis and the mid-point Practicum assessment, students gain a measure of sophistication in their knowledge, skills, and dispositions. It is clear that by the time they serve clients, such as College of Education faculty or teachers in the DOE, they are well-received. The additional feedback they receive from such client groups adds authentic assessment of their capabilities.

Effects on Student/Client Learning in a Supportive Environment

The Instructional Development Project from LTEC 613 and the LTEC 602 Technology Promotion Project are used to assess our master’s candidate’s effects on providing supportive learning environments for student or client learning. Between the two project outcomes, four of five AECT Standards are primarily covered: Design, Development, Utilization and Evaluation, although all five Standards were addressed in the assessment rubrics. Candidates’ acceptable and target rating on both assessments indicate that they are doing well with 100% meeting the standards for student/client learning in a supportive environment.

The Instructional Development Project and Technology Promotion Project are based on candidates' ability to apply a systems approach to designing and delivering and evaluating instruction or training. Candidates receive both peer and instructor feedback on both projects and revisions are an ongoing process. The ID Project emphasizes the small group testing of instructional modules for formative evaluation. This experience helps to guide the improvement of student learning using actual data.

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)

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

The assessment results were used by faculty to note the general outcomes for each standard and substandards. Overall, faculty feel positive about the results of our 7 assessments for meeting our program goals. Students appear to be achieving the goals with no major problems. The faculty have taken steps to make changes when needed, to improve student and program performances. No major changes were required this time. While regular faculty meetings and annual faculty retreats allow for formal discussions about improvements, the department is small and frequent informal discussions about students and the program are conducted as needed. Ideas generated from these discussions are brought to the entire faculty for decisions.

The positive results of our program are shared with our students, alumni and pubic in a variety of ways. We use social media such as Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter to celebrate our successes. We have faculty and student panels at our annual department networking event, TCCfx virtual conference and our new student orientation and retreat.

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.

We will be discussing Assessment as a topic for our annual department retreat on October 29, 2015. We are finally implementing new standards from our national organization AECT. Since we have been highly successful based on the assessments we have done, the past several years, we are eager to align our current assessment with the new standards.


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