Unit: Special Education
Program: Special Education (MEd)
Degree: Master's
Date: Wed Sep 23, 2015 - 2:54:20 pm

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

Graduate Student Learning Outcomes: The SLOs are the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) Specialists Advanced Preparation Standards. The standards that address the knowledge, skills and dispositions used as SLOs in the M.Ed. program are Standards 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7:

CEC Standard 1: Assessment: Special education specialists use valid and reliable assessment practices to minimize bias.

CEC Standard 3: Programs, Services, and Outcomes: Special education specialists facilitate the continuous improvement of general and special education programs, supports, and services at the classroom, school, and systems levels for individuals with exceptionalitie

CEC Standard 4: Research and Inquiry: Special education specialists conduct, evaluate, and use inquiry to guide professional practice.

CEC Standard 6: Professional and Ethical Practice: Special education specialists use foundational knowledge of the field and professional Ethical Principles and Practice Standards to inform special education practice, engage in lifelong learning, advance the profession, and perform leadership responsibilities to promote the success of professional colleagues and individuals with exceptionalities.

CEC Standard 7: Collaboration: Special education specialists collaborate with stakeholders to improve programs, services, and outcomes for individuals with exceptionalities and their families.

 

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

Department Website URL:
Student Handbook. URL, if available online:
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: NA
Other: http://www.cec.sped.org/Standards/Special-Educator-Professional-Preparation/CEC-Initial-and-Advanced-Preparation-Standards?sc_lang=en
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.

The department continuously reviews candidate data during committee, program, and faculty meetings.  Faculty reviewed data and feedback from candidates, course instructors, and program faculty to determine changes to the program, courses, or products.  Prior to Fall 2014 faculty met to review courses, products, and SLOs because CEC had  revised the Advanced Sandards. As a result courses and course products were aligned with the revised CEC Standards. The products for three courses were changed. The product for SPED 688 was changed from IRB application to completion of CITI Training Modules for Social and Behavioral Research.  The product for SPED 602 was changed from Service Learning Project to Applied Issues Project.  And the product in SPED 641 was changed from Presentation/Workshop in SPED to Issues in Special Education Paper. Faculty who taught courses in the M.Ed. Interdisciplinary Program met at the beginning of the Spring 2015 semester to review candidate SLO data for the M.Ed. courses taught during the Fall 2014 semester. Faculty reflected on the data of individual courses and of the program overall. Faculty also met in September of 2015 to review candidate SLO data for courses taught in the 2014 – 2015 academic year.

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: Citi Training Modules for Social and Behavioral Research completion report
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.

In Fall 2014 there were 26 candidates enrolled and in Spring 2015 there were 23 candidates enrolled in the M.Ed. Interdisciplinary program. Candidates (n=30) enrolled in core courses in Fall 2014 and Spring 2015 with required assessment products were assessed All M.Ed. candidates enrolled in courses with required assessment products were included in this sample.

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: Department Assessment Coordinator

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.

Assessment 1.Applied Issues Paper in SPED 602 (Fall 2014). Of the 14 candidates who completed the Applied Issues paper in SPED 602, 12 of the candidates scored Target for a rate of 86%, two scored Acceptable for a rate of 14%, and no one score Unacceptable for CEC Advanced Standard 6:Professional and Ethical Practice.

Assessment 2. Issues in Special Education Paper in SPED 641 (Spring 2015).  Of the 10 candidates who completed the Issues in Special Education paper in SPED 641, eight scored Target for a rate of 80%, two of the candidates scored Acceptable for a rate of 20%, and no one scored Unacceptable for CEC Advanced Standard 3: Programs, Services, and Outcomes.

Assessment 3. Exam in SPED 642 (Spring 2015). Of the 16 candidates who completed the exam in SPED 642, six candidates scored Target for a rate of 38%, nine scored Acceptable for a rate of 56%, and one scored Unacceptable for a rate of 6% for CEC Advanced Standards 1: Assessment and 4: Research and Inquiry.

Assessment 4. CITI Modules in SPED 688 (Fall 2014). Of the 13 candidates who completed the CITI Modules in SPED 688, all 13 candidates scored Target for a rate of 100% for CEC Advanced Standards 6: Professional & Ethical Practice.

Assessment 5. Plan A/B Paper in SPED 700/695 (Fall 2014; Spring 2015). Of the three candidates who completed the Plan B paper in SPED 695 in Fall 2014 one score Target for a rate of 33%, two scored Acceptable for a rate of 67%, and no one scored Unacceptable for CEC Advanced Standards 4: Research and Inquiry and 7: Collaboration.  Of the six candidates who completed the Plan B paper in SPED 695 in Spring 2015 all six scored Target for a rate of 100% for CEC Advanced Standard 4: Research and Inquiry. Four of the six candidates scored Target for a rate of 67% and two of the six scored Acceptable for a rate of 33% for CEC Advanced Standard 7: Collaboration.

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.

Results of the five assessments indicate mastery of the CEC Advanced standards, with the strong majority of candidates receiving a rating of Target or Acceptable on all assessments. On four of the five assessments 100% of the candidates received a rating of Target or Acceptable. On one assessment the majority of candidates (94% for Standards 1 and 4) received a rating of Target or Acceptable. Overall, the results indicate strong candidate mastery of the CEC Advanced standards.

The department continuously reviewed candidate data during committee, program, and faculty meetings.  Faculty reviewed data and feedback from candidates, course instructors, and program faculty to determine changes to the program, courses, or products. Because the CEC Advanced Standards had been revised faculty decided to review the courses and the SLOs that are aligned with the CEC Advanced Standards and to revise course products and include SLOs that are aligned with the revised CEC Advanced Standards. As a result products were changed in three courses. In SPED 602 faculty decided to replace the Service Learning Project with an Applied Issues Paper. Faculty decided to replace the IRB application with the CITI Training Modules  in Social and Behavioral Research in SPED 688. And faculty decided to replace the Presentation/Workshop in SPED 641 with an Issues in Special Education Paper. The high scores for each of those projects during the 2014 – 2015 academic year support the decisions to replace the products.  In addition to replacing the products faculty also aligned the courses and new products with the revised CEC Advanced Standards. A curriculum map was used to facilitate alignment of standards with course content and products.

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 is extremely pleased with the results of the assessment products. Data strongly support candidates' competencies at meeting (Acceptable) or exceeding (Target) course and program SLOs. Faculty involvement in providing data for product SLOs and reflecting on that data provided useful information for further developing the M.Ed. program. As a result of reflection activities two additional emphasis areas were included in the SPED M.Ed. program. Faculty worked to obtain approval of a M.Ed. in collaboration with Curriculum Studies on a LIteracy Specialist emphasis. Faculty also worked in collaboration with the Center on Disabilities Studies to obtain approval of a M.Ed. with a Board Certified Behavior Analysis (BCBA) emphasis. Recruitment for these two programs began Fall 2014 and resulted in a cohort for each area that began in Fall 2015. 

Faculty also acknowledge the importance of recruitment activities and financial resources provided by two scholarships (SPED Scholarship and STAR Scholarship) in supporting our M.Ed candidates.  A culminating achievement is the publication of two candidates' Plan B papers in a peer-reviewed journal.

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