Unit: Educational Psychology
Program: Educational Psychology (PhD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Fri Oct 09, 2015 - 7:24:21 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.

1.    Educational Psychology graduate students are knowledgeable about learning and development, inquiry methods, and student assessment.

2.    Educational Psychology graduate students have inquiry skills to conduct scholarly research effectively.

3.    Educational Psychology graduate students present scholarly research effectively.

4.   Educational Psychology graduate students model the ethical treatment of research participants.

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

Department Website URL: https://coe.hawaii.edu/academics/educational-psychology
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: https://coe.hawaii.edu/documents/2371
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
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.

Collect/evaluate student work/performance to determine SLO achievement

1. (Knowledge) Faculty members rated the literature reviews of candidates' dissertation proposals and final papers to determine the extent to which they demonstrated expected bodies of knowledge.

2. (Skills) Faculty members rated candidates' dissertation proposal and final paper method sections to determine the extent to which they demonstrated expected skills to conduct scholarly research.

3. (Skills) Faculty members rated candidates' dissertation final presentations to determine the extent to which they demonstrated skills to present scholarly research effectively.

4. (Dispositions). Faculty members documented whether their advisees successfully completed an on-line course on the ethical treatment of human participants in research.

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: Dissertation proposal
Other 2: Final presentation of dissertation

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.

Ratings of candidates' dissertation proposals (required of all students): 2

Ratings of candidates' dissertations (required of all students):: 2

Candidates' evaluated for completion of the human subjects' training (required of all students): 2

Ratings of candidates final thesis or Plan B presentations (required of all students): 2

Candidates self-report on on-line survey (all students recruited in their last semester): 2

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.

We wanted to know whether candidates were knowledgeable about learning and development, inquiry methods, and student assessment (SLO 1). 

Two students completed their dissertations proposals.  One student was rated as exemplary on all aspects of the proposal literature review. The other student received exemplary ratings for the statement of the research question and contextualizing the research question within the existing literature.

Two other students completed their dissertations. One student was rated as exemplary on all aspects of the proposal literature review. The other student received exemplary ratings for the statement of the research question and contextualizing the research question within the existing literature.

We wanted to know whether candidates had inquiry skills to conduct scholarly research effectively (SLO 2).

Of the two students who completed the proposal, one student received exemplary ratings for all aspects of the methods section except for data analysis, which was rated as satisfactory. The second student received satisfactory ratings on research design, description of participants, and data analysis, and exemplary for procedures.

Both of the students who completed their dissertations received exemplary ratings on all aspects of the dissertation methods section.

We wanted to know whether candidates could present scholarly research effectively (SLO 3). 

For the two students who made presentations of their dissertations, all but one rating were exemplary. The one exception was for one student whose use of visual aids was rated as satisfactory.

We wanted to know if candidates modeled the ethical treatment of research participants (SLO 4).

Both students who completed their dissertation proposals successfully completed the online ethics course.

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.

  1. Assessment Procedures--The faculty reinforced the importance of rating students collaboratively with the students’ committee members (not just the advisor doing the ratings) and making timely ratings (soon after the proposals and dissertations are completed and the presentations are made).
  1. Course Changes—The faculty felt that students would better learn about research design and data analysis from the required research methods course (EDEP 608), if they took the required introductory statiscis course (EDEP 601) before or concurrently with EDEP 608. They decided to make EDEP 601 a co-requisite of EDEP 608.

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.

Although the Dean's office distributes surveys to students in their last semester of their programs, the survey did not ask candidates to self-report regarding the extent to which they achieved the SLOs. We will suggest that the survey be modified to include this.

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