Unit: Curriculum Studies
Program: Curriculum Studies (MEd)
Degree: Master's
Date: Thu Nov 19, 2015 - 4:05:26 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.

The program is research-based and grounded in theory. Its goals are to:

  1. Develop well-informed and reflective practitioners.
  2. Enhance teachers’ knowledge and their instructional skills.
  3. Foster the application of new knowledge in the schools.
  4. Enhance teachers’ ability to understand and implement research.
  5. Encourage and increase the professionalism of teachers in Hawai‘i, as well as other States and nations of the Pacific Rim.
  6. Prepare those interested in entering doctoral programs in education.

Objectives of the CS program are that students:

  1. Increase knowledge in one or more areas of inquiry.
  2. Reflect on practice.
  3. Become better informed about the developmental and educational needs of children and adolescents from various communities.
  4. Become more skillful in developing educational programs to meet individual and group needs.
  5. Become more versatile in the use of a variety of teaching strategies.
  6. Learn about new issues and trends in their fields.
  7. Increase understanding of educational issues related to diversity and multiculturalism.
  8. Enhance ability to implement culturally responsive teaching practices.
  9. Investigate issues and trends in assessment.
  10. Increase understanding and ability to apply and conduct educational research.
  11. Acquire understanding of ethical dimensions of classroom research.
  12. Become more able to provide leadership in a classroom, school or school system. 

 

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

Department Website URL: https://coe.hawaii.edu/academics/curriculum-studies
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: https://coe.hawaii.edu/academics/curriculum-studies/med-cs
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: https://coe.hawaii.edu/academics/curriculum-studies/med/programs
UHM Catalog. Page Number: http://www.catalog.hawaii.edu/courses/departments/edcs.htm
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.

Faculty used 5 rubrics to assess students' achievement of SLOs. We also analyzed surveys completed by graduating students. Results of both direct and indirect measures were used for program improvement. 

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.

169 persons submitted evidence that was evaluated (159 course assignments and 10 program completer surveys).

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:

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

All students who were assessed on their Lesson Series, Curriculum Emphasis (n=43); Lesson Series: Special Needs/Cultural Emphasis (n=38); and Personal Curriculum Histories (n=14) were rated as Target on all program standards. 

Of the 16 students assessed on their Review of Literature, all achieved Target on our "Field of Education" and "Curriculum and Pedagogy" standards, but 15% received the lower score of Acceptable in "Research in Education." Similarly, 17% of the 80 students who completed an Application to CHS achieved Acceptable ratings in "Research in Education" and one received Unacceptable. On the CHS Application, 83.75% achieved Target on our Professionalism Standard, while 16.25% received Acceptable.

The MEd-CS Completion Survey 2014-15 also measured how well we met program goals. Of the 10 responders, 30% were very satisfied, 60% were mostly satisfied, and 10% somewhat satisfied. Written comments provided additional information for program improvement. 

 

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.

The program used the lower than hoped for results on our "Research" and "Professionalism" Standards to redesign two core courses. The title and content of EDCS 622--the curriculum course students take early in their program--were changed from School Curriculum to Curriculum Leadership. Students are encouraged to select their Plan B research topic early, so they may develop their project throughout the program. The Department Chair and a recent graduate attended the first class of the redesigned course and spoke to students about issues related to both research and professionalism.

EDCS 606, our introductory research course, is also being revised to offer more specific guidance for developing research proposals. The role of research in teacher professionalism is emphasized.

The core courses were selected for immediate attention because they are experienced by all of our students.

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.

Only one student was judged as unacceptable on one standard. However, there's always room to improve.

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

N/A