Unit: Learning Design and Technology
Program: Learning Design and Technology (MEd)
Degree: Master's
Date: Thu Nov 15, 2018 - 11:39:24 am

1) Program Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) and Institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs)

1. Students will be able to write a final research paper.

(1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in one or more general subject areas related to, but not confined to, a specific area of interest.)

2. Students will be able to conduct an instructional design project.

(2. Demonstrate understanding of research methodology and techniques specific to one’s field of study.)

3. Students will be able to write a research proposal/an idea paper.

(4. Critically analyze, synthesize, and utilize information and data related to one’s field of study.)

4. Students will be able to design and execute a culminating research project.

(5. Proficiently communicate and disseminate information in a manner relevant to the field and intended audience.)

5. Students will be able to present their research at an online international conference.

(7. Interact professionally with others.)

6. Students will be able to complete and submit an IRB application.

(6. Conduct research or projects as a responsible and ethical professional, including consideration of and respect for other cultural perspectives.)

7. Students will be able to work in collaborative teams.

(7. Interact professionally with others.)

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

Department Website URL: http://go.hawaii.edu/hN
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eEEDh5ab9WR09b60KAPXUzgCoF5pna4H/view
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: Presentation and handouts during New Student Orientation
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: NA
Other: Advising Documents
Other:

3) Please review, add, replace, or delete the existing curriculum map.

Curriculum Map File(s) from 2018:

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) Does the program have learning achievement results for its program SLOs? (Example of achievement results: "80% of students met expectations on SLO 1.")(check one):

No
Yes, on some(1-50%) of the program SLOs
Yes, on most(51-99%) of the program SLOs
Yes, on all(100%) of the program SLOs

6) Did your program engage in any program learning assessment activities between June 1, 2015 and October 31, 2018?

Yes
No (skip to question 17)

7) What best describes the program-level learning assessment activities that took place for the period June 1, 2015 to October 31, 2018? (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)
No (skip to question 17)
Investigate other pressing issue related to student learning achievement for the program (explain in question 7)
Other: Every year faculty meet to review every student on academic achievement and dispositions to make sure they are on track.

8) Briefly explain the assessment activities that took place.

Create/modify/discuss program learning assessment procedures (e.g., SLOs, curriculum map, mechanism to collect student work, rubric, survey)

  • The program revised its SLO with new AECT standards.

  • The program aligned ILO, SLO and AECT standards and reconfigured curriculum map.
     

Collect/evaluate student work/performance to determine SLO achievement

  • The program created a spreadsheet in Google to collect achievement data for SLOs.

  • Data were recorded by instructors for course assignments tied to all SLOs
     

Collect/analyze student self-reports of SLO achievement via surveys, interviews, or focus groups

  • Student reflections on most SLOs were collected through  course assignments.

Use assessment results to make programmatic decisions (e.g., change course content or pedagogy, design new course, hiring)

  • The faculty teaching core courses used assessment results to revise key assignments and content covered in each courses.

  • Faculty teaching final two practicum courses met regularly to scaffold assignments to improve achievement of SLOs related to master’s paper, master’s project and IRB application.

  • They worked with faculty teaching first year core courses to align course assignments to best meet the needs of students entering final two practicum courses.


Investigate curriculum coherence. This includes investigating how well courses address the SLOs, course sequencing and adequacy, the effect of pre-requisites on learning achievement.

  • The revised curriculum map was used to check for gaps in the SLOs. None were found but areas of overlap in courses were streamlined so that no more than two data sources was used for each SLO.

 

9) What types of evidence did the program use as part of the assessment activities checked in question 7? (Check all that apply.)

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
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.)
Other 1: Annual faculty review of student academic achievement and disposition.
Other 2:

10) State the number of students (or persons) who submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.

We used the assignments linked to the ILOs from 4 core courses for the past 3 years. ILO’s 2 and 3 are from first year courses and ILO’s 1, 4, 5 and 6 are from final year courses. ILO 7 is an assessment on student dispositions conducted at a faculty meeting at the end each academic year.  
 

The number of responses range from 50-70 student.
 

ILO

Assessment Source

# of Students

1

LTEC 687 Master's Paper

55

2

LTEC 613 ID Project

70

3

LTEC 611 Idea paper

70

4

LTEC 690 Project & Paper

54

5

690 TCC Presentation

54

6

LTEC 687 - IRB

50

7

Faculty Review of Students’ Dispositions

70

 

11) 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:

12) 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:

13) Summarize the results of the assessment activities checked in question 7. For example, report the percentage of students who achieved each SLO.

Faculty teaching core courses from 2015-2018 associated with SLOs 1-6 were responsible for entering student data at the end of semester. As illustrated in the table below, 100% of the students achieved the SLOs (acceptable and excellent ratings combined). For SLO 7, a review of student dispositions was conducted by all faculty at the end of each academic year. A small percentage of students (8%) were associated with concerns and they did not receive an acceptable rating. This was the only SLO that was not achieved 100% of the students.

 

SLO

Assessment Source

% of Students

1. Students will be able to write a final research paper.

LTEC 687 Master's Paper

Acceptable        78%

Excellent            22%

Achieving SLO: 100%

2. Students will be able to conduct an instructional design project.

LTEC 613 ID Project

Acceptable        84%

Excellent            16%

Achieving SLO: 100%

3. Students will be able to write a research proposal/an idea paper

LTEC 611 Idea paper

Acceptable        96%

Excellent               4%

Achieving SLO: 100%

4. Students will be able to design and execute a culminating research project.

LTEC 690 Project & Paper

Acceptable        76%

Excellent            22%

Achieving SLO: 100%

5. Students will be able to present their research at an online international conference.

690 TCC Presentation

Acceptable        65%

Excellent            35%

Achieving SLO: 100%

6. Students will be able to complete and submit an IRB application.

LTEC 687 - IRB

Acceptable        74%

Excellent            26%

Achieving SLO: 100%

7. Students will be able to work in collaborative teams.

Faculty Review of Students’ Dispositions

Concerns             8%

Acceptable        69%

Excellent            23%

Achieving SLO:  92%

 

14) 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:

15) Please briefly describe how the program used the results.

The assessment results indicated that students in their final year were doing acceptable work in preparing their master’s paper (SLO 1) and master’s project and paper (SLO 4) and IRB application (SLO 6), faculty would like to see more excellent work done. Faculty teaching the final year practicum courses (LTEC 687 and LTEC 690) met frequently to revise the content of both courses. To assist students in writing drafts of their master’s paper, milestones for the course were integrated into a paper template so that weekly work on the milestones could be addressed in the paper. The course schedules were adjusted to allow ample time to share milestones with critical friends, receive feedback and then include their narratives in their master’s paper drafts. Also, the IRB application in eProtocol appeared to challenge students with finding appropriate pieces of their paper to fit into the eProtocol form. Therefore, questions or directions from the eProtocol form were highlighted in the paper template so that students would be able identify sections of their paper that were associated with a particular eProtocol item.

From the same SLO data, faculty have recognized that students are not putting enough emphasis on the design aspect of their master’s project. Faculty are having discussions about revising first year courses to include more practical design thinking in assignments. It was also noted that students could improve their literature review section of their master’s paper and a discussion is ongoing about which first-year core course should include writing a literature review as an assignment.

Finally, the positive results on the assessments indicate that our program has a lot to celebrate about student success and we do. Students present their master’s project at an international online conference, TCC Worldwide Online Conference. Their presentations have received excellent reviews and are attended by participants from around the globe. The Burniske Best Master’s Project Award is given during a graduation celebration each May. An awardee and two finalists receive cash awards from the Burniske UH Foundation. Each fall, an LTEC Connections event is held to recognize distinguished LTEC alumni and to connect current students to the growing community of LTEC graduates, all who have been successful in their careers.

 

16) 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 student assessment is constant, faculty need to be reminded that program assessment needs to be constant as well. If data are not entered at the end of each semester, problems may occur with missing data because faculty may have retired or resigned and the department does not have access to the assignment results. Althought the spreadsheet in Google Docs has served its purpose well to collect data, we will be shifting to the College of Education's Student Information System to make the input of data more efficient for faculty. The SIS will identify faculty teaching courses that are assessing the SLOs.

17) If the program did not engage in assessment activities, please justify.

We did engage in assessment activities.