Program: Learning Design and Technology (PhD)
Date: Mon Nov 13, 2017 - 7:15:38 pm
1) Institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs) and Program Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs)
1. Demonstrate theoretical and conceptual knowledge in the broad issues of education and in the skills, knowledge and problems within the field of educational technology. (Knowledge)
(1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in one or more general subject areas related to, but not confined to, a specific area of interest.)
2. Demonstrate foundational knowledge of the contribution of research to the past and current theory of educational communications and technology.
(1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in one or more general subject areas related to, but not confined to, a specific area of interest., 2. Demonstrate understanding of research methodology and techniques specific to one’s field of study.)
3. Demonstrate the knowledge necessary to create, use, assess, and manage theoretical and practical applications of educational technologies and processes.
(4. Critically analyze, synthesize, and utilize information and data related to one’s field of study.)
4. Apply an inquiring and critical approach to issues and possible solutions to problems in education. (Research)
(3. Apply research methodology and/or scholarly inquiry techniques specific to one’s field of study.)
5. Apply appropriate research methodologies to address problems, enhance practice, and contribute to the knowledge base of the field.
(2. Demonstrate understanding of research methodology and techniques specific to one’s field of study.)
6. Develop a deep respect for the public trust that is invested in them as future intellectual and social leaders in the field of education. (Professional Ethics)
(6. Conduct research or projects as a responsible and ethical professional, including consideration of and respect for other cultural perspectives.)
7. Conduct research and practice using accepted professional and institutional guidelines and procedures.
(5. Proficiently communicate and disseminate information in a manner relevant to the field and intended audience., 7. Interact professionally with others.)
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18H8pC8GY1i1LARaeaPu2uQB4KRAXka0JJuM7ZFWc7m4/edit
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: Part of orientation presentation for all new students
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: As appropriate for each course
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.
5) Did your program engage in any program learning assessment activities between June 1, 2015 and October 31, 2017?
No (skip to question 16)
6) What best describes the program-level learning assessment activities that took place for the period June 1, 2015 to October 31, 2017? (Check all that apply.)
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)
7) Briefly explain the assessment activities that took place in the last 28 months.
A. Create/modify/discuss: As our program is relatively new, the entire department utilized faculty (discussion) and student (surveys) feedback to reflect on and update PhD program requirements. These updates were approved by the Graduate Council on October 17, 2017. The Curriculum Map was updated to reflect these changes.
B. Collect/analyze: Student exit surveys (n=4) were collected and discussed at our annual LTEC planning retreat
C. Investigate: As mentioned in 7.A. above, curriculum mapping and course sequencing was investigated and updated to a new Curriculum Map.
8) What types of evidence did the program use as part of the assessment activities checked in question 6? (Check all that apply.)
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
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
Assessment-related such as assessment plan, SLOs, curriculum map, etc.
Program or course materials (syllabi, assignments, requirements, etc.)
9) State the number of students (or persons) who submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
Four student surveys. To date, our program has graduated 9 students in the program. Surveys were provided to all graduating students post-graduation. Thus, an N=4 is 44% of our graduates.
10) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? (Check all that apply.)
Ad hoc faculty group
Persons or organization outside the university
Advisors (in student support services)
Students (graduate or undergraduate)
11) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? (Check all that apply.)
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)
12) Summarize the results of the assessment activities checked in question 6. For example, report the percent of students who achieved each SLO.
From faculty discussions, it was determined that all current students in the program were progressing appropriately academically. Some students were identified for concerns related to dispositions and the Department Chair met with these students to address these concerns.
From the alumni survey, improvement areas were identified:
*Offering more elective/emphasis courses
*Expanding faculty’s support and involvement in providing resources for conducting research, including information about- and guidance in writing journal articles and publishing
*Creating and providing opportunities for doctoral students to engage in online professional development workshops or group discussions with faculty-, peer-, and near-peer (recent PhD alumni) mentoring and advising, especially for doctoral students who live off-island of Oahu
*Providing more opportunities for development of the professional ethics and dispositions as part of students’ doctoral experiences
*Establishing opportunities for increasing and maintaining professional networks and relationships with faculty (i.e., mentors) and other LTEC students and others working in students’ expertise or research interest in learning design and technology; encouraging and supporting students to attend or present at conferences on education and technology; providing resources related to conferences or events with professionals in online education
*Facilitating program collaboration with the College of Education Doctoral Student Organization (COEDSA) to support LTEC doctoral students professional development
13) What best describes how the program used the results? (Check all that apply.)
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)
14) Please briefly describe how the program used the results.
*Curriculum map was updated including course changes
*A probation plan for students not meeting disposition expectations was created
*Regular program faculty discussions were held to ensure student success academically as well as professionally
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.
Our program is very new and it was agreed that we would need to regularly visit various standards alignment and program assessment.