Program: Education (PhD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Mon Nov 16, 2015 - 9:27:27 pm
1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.
The objectives of the program are
1. Knowledge. Students will become knowledgeable in the broad issues of education and in the skills, knowledge and problems within their specialization area. Students will develop an inquiring and critical approach to issues and possible solutions to problems in education. The body of knowledge and specific objectives are developed on an individual basis in collaboration among the student, his/her advisor, and committee members. The doctoral program is unique in that students are expected to develop their knowledge of the field to the degree that they can understand the issues and problems in the field of education, and their specialization, in order to develop an inquiry project that will generate new knowledge in education.
2. Research. Students will develop competencies in the broad issues of conducting and evaluating research in education, and develop the skills needed to develop a research problem and questions, design a study about a significant issue, collect appropriate data, analyze results and write a dissertation. Students’ dissertation research must be on an original problem and contribute to the knowledge base in education. The results of students research will be disseminated internationally, nationally and locally, where appropriate, so that it may be utilized for the improvement of education.
3. Caring and Professional Ethics. Students will develop a deep respect for the public trust that is invested in them as future intellectual and social leaders in the field of education. Research that they conduct, or to which they refer in making recommendations, will be carefully vetted for accuracy, fairness, and beneficence regarding the clients, recipients, participants and the broader public good. The program supports an attitude or disposition of caring or consideration for all people, and especially for students at every level and from various walks of life.
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://coe.hawaii.edu/graduate/doctoral
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: UHM Catalog. Page Number: page numbers not available in on-line catalog Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: Other: 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.
1) The program administrative committee drafted a rubric to assess the quality of the dissertation defense. We are continuing this activity this year and hope to pilot the rubric in Spring 2016.
2) The program administrative committee discussed time-to-candidacy issues related to program requirements and proposed a strategy to support students in moving from the coursework to dissertation phases of their programs.
3) The program administrative committee reviewed data from the annual survey of program graduates (2014-2015 academic year) and noted areas for improvement (primarily in the area of student support).
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.
Fall 2014: 10 Students advanced to candidacy
13 Students graduated
Spring/Summer 2014 8 Students advanced to candidacy
11 Students graduated
Completer surveys returned: Fall 2014: 8
Spring 2015: 16
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.
In terms of student progress in the PhD program, three main questions were examined:
How well are doctoral students achieving our program objectives in terms of breadth and depth of knowledge? (Obj. 1)
How do we know students are prepared to conceptualize and conduct research? (Obj. 2)
How do we support the development of students who understand ethical practice in conducting research and engaging in professional activities? (Obj. 1, 2, 3)
During the 2014-15 assessment year, 18 students advanced from coursework to candidacy in the program, and 24 students successfully defended their dissertations and graduated.
In examining the questions:
What do students think about overall program quality? (Obj. 1, 2, 3)
Should we revise our program objectives? (Obj. 1, 2, 3)
The results of the post-graduation survey (n=19; 79% response rate) indicate that the program is doing well and students were highly satisfied (100% satisfaction rating) with their experience at Manoa. Students indicated that the dissertation and research training were the most valuable learning experiences in the program.
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 Graduate Faculty in Education is creating a capstone course to add to the Core program requirements (currently 15 credits consisting of 12 units of research and 3 units of internship) that will be taken in the last semester of coursework, and that will require students to have a draft dissertation proposal completed at the time they complete coursework.
The Graduate Faculty in Education has drafted a rubric for assessing the quality of the dissertation. Work on this draft will continue Fall 2015, and the rubric will be piloted Spring 2016.
In addition, each specialization will keep and monitor an annual progress form on its students, with advisers meeting at least annually with students who are not in the phase of active course-taking.
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 GFE members discovered that the assessment process is heavily back-loaded. That is, not much program assessment data focuses on students' course-taking experiences. This is, in part, because each of the six (formerly seven, however Educational Technology now has its own PhD) specializations are programatically very different. Still, the GFE is revising assessment for the 2014-15 program year to incorporate either one or two assessment data points during the course-taking phase of the program.
Also, the GFE is working to see that each specialization admits new students based on the number of graduates to make sure there is an appropriate proportion of faculty to students to better meet student advising needs.