Unit: Educational Administration
Program: Educational Admin (MEd)
Degree: Master's
Date: Fri Oct 09, 2015 - 10:57:56 am

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.

Program Standards/Outcomes
What candidates should know and do, and the ways that they should demonstrate professionalism
1. Educational leaders are knowledgeable about and understand organizational life in schools and the dynamics of school change processes by examining trends, traditions, theory and policies of institutions in order to improve educational practice which promotes the learning success of all students.
2. Educational leaders understand, can articulate, and act within the moral/ethical, political, collaborative, strategic and caring dimensions of administrative roles within diverse cultural contexts.
3. Educational leaders demonstrate a well developed analytic capacity that is informed by theory, research, and practice to solve organizational problems and generate policy.
4. Educational leaders can apply knowledge and skills to changing organization contexts impacted by social, political, economic, cultural, and technological forces in order to foster the growth and development of the organization and its members.

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: NA
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: NA
Other: College of Education CAEP website
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.

Assessment 1:  Students prepared a written leadership platform document as a major assignment in the introductory course of the program.

Assessment 2: The students completed a written paper identifying an educational problem, conducting an appropriate literature review on the problem, and proposing an empirical (either quantitative or qualitative) study to address that concern.

Assessment 3:  Students wrote a response to a legal case.  This assignment consisted of a comprehensive case involving a legal issue that a principal might encounter.  The assessment was based on their ability to address four aspects. First, they identified the legal (and often accompanying ethical) issue that is central to the case.  Second, they cited and discussed all relevant aspects of law (e.g., case law, legislation, policy). Third, they presented a plan for handling the situation that addressed the legal aspects and leads to the best possible resolution for all parties involved. Fourth, they presented an analysis of how, if possible, the situation could have been avoided and the action they would take to prevent a recurrence. 

Assessment 4.1: Students designed, developed and executed a professional portfolio related to their interest, work and study in educational leadership.  They also incorporated the leadership platform (see Assessment 1, modified from their original version based on the additional knowledge they developed over the course of their Master's program.

 

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.

Assessment 1:   29

Assessment 2:   33

Assessment 3:   33

Assessment 4:   30

All students in the courses where the assessments took place were included in the sampling.

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.

Assessment 1

Title:  Educational Platform

Summer 2014/Spring 2015

            N= 29 of 29

                                                              Unacceptable             Acceptable             Exceeds

            Educational Content                        0%                            20%                         80%                       

            Leadership                                      0%                             10%                          90%

            Effective Argument                          0%                             10 %                       90%

            Writing Effectiveness                       0%                            25%                        75%

            Audience                                          0%                             10%                        90%

Assessment 2  Research and School Improvement Inquiry

Title:  Proposing an Educational Research Study

Spring 2015

N =33 of 33    

                                                 Unacceptable             Acceptable             Exceeds             

Problem identification                     0%                          21%                           79%                           

Framework/literature                       0%                          21%                          79%

Research methods/analysis            0%                          21%                          79%

Implications                                     0%                          21%                         79%

Assessment 3  Case Study in Law and Leadership

Spring 2015

N=33 of 33

                                                                Unacceptable             Acceptable             Exceeds              

 Identification of legal issue               0%                        15%                         85%                          

Citing of relevant law                         0%                        15%                         85%

Resolution plan                                  0%                        18%                         82%

Analysis and implications                   0%                        18%                          82%  

Assessment 4  Leadership/Organization Culminating Project (Portfolio)

Spring 2015

N=30 of 30

                                                     Unacceptable             Acceptable             Exceeds                 

Demonstration of knowledge about

 and understanding of:

#1 Organizations                                        0%                           0%                       100%                       

#2 Administrative roles                               0%                           0%                        100%

#3 Changing organizational                        0%                           3%                         97%

     contexts

 

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 department met with together to discuss the results on the assessments and concluded that the new rubrics instituted in 2014 were working well.  We met with our external review team in (primarily program alumni and constituents in educational leadership at UH and in the Hawaii Department of Education) to share the results and get their feedback.  The external group had very positive comments about the program and its outcomes.

 

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.

Since we are a small department and hire adjunct faculty members to teach some of the courses in which our assessments are based, we decided to have a meeting with the adjunct faculty members to review the assessment process and practice using the rubrics for better interrater reliability.  The meeting was held in Spring 2015 and will be repeated in Spring 2016.

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