Unit: Institute for Teacher Education
Program: Secondary Education (BEd)
Degree: Bachelor's
Date: Mon Nov 12, 2018 - 2:58:19 pm

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

1. Standard #1: Learner Development The teacher understands how learners grow and develop, recognizing that patterns of learning and development vary individually within and across the cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, and physical areas, and designs and implements developmentally appropriate and challenging learning experiences.

(1a. General education, 1c. Understand Hawaiian culture and history, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture)

2. Standard #2: Learning Differences The teacher uses understanding of individual differences and diverse cultures and communities to ensure inclusive learning environments that enable each learner to meet high standards.

(1c. Understand Hawaiian culture and history, 2c. Communicate and report, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture)

3. Standard #3: Learning Environments The teacher works with others to create environments that support individual and collaborative learning, and that encourage positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self motivation.

(2c. Communicate and report, 3c. Stewardship of the natural environment)

4. Standard #4: Content Knowledge The teacher understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the discipline(s) he or she teaches and creates learning experiences that make these aspects of the discipline accessible and meaningful for learners to assure mastery of the content.

(1a. General education, 2b. Conduct research)

5. Standard #5: Application of Content The teacher understands how to connect concepts and use differing perspectives to engage learners in critical thinking, creativity, and collaborative problem solving related to authentic local and global issues.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research)

6. Standard #6: Assessment The teacher understands and uses multiple methods of assessment to engage learners in their own growth, to monitor learner progress, and to guide the teachers and learners decision making.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2b. Conduct research)

7. Standard #7: Planning for Instruction The teacher plans instruction that supports every student in meeting rigorous learning goals by drawing upon knowledge of content areas, curriculum, cross-disciplinary skills, and pedagogy, as well as knowledge of learners and the community context.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research)

8. Standard #8: Instructional Strategies The teacher understands and uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage learners to develop deep understanding of content areas and their connections, and to build skills to apply knowledge in meaningful ways.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field)

9. Standard #9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice The teacher engages in ongoing professional learning and uses evidence to continually evaluate his/her practice, particularly the effects of his/her choices and actions on others (learners, families, other professionals, and the community), and adapts practice to meet the needs of each learner.

(3a. Continuous learning and personal growth, 3d. Civic participation)

10. Standard #10: Leadership and Collaboration The teacher seeks appropriate leadership roles and opportunities to take responsibility for student learning, to collaborate with learners, families, colleagues, other school professionals, and community members to ensure learner growth, and to advance the profession.

(2c. Communicate and report, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth, 3d. Civic participation)

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

Department Website URL: https://coe.hawaii.edu/academics/institute-teacher-education/bed-secondary-education
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: https://programs.coe.hawaii.edu/secondary/lessons/about-the-program/#4-standards-amp-objectives
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:
UHM Catalog. Page Number: 209-210
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online:
Other:
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:

8) Briefly explain the assessment activities that took place.

The COE licensure programs engaged in a collaborative effort to develop shared key assessments to assess student learning across all licensure programs. In 2015-16, a cross program committee worked on developing the four shared assessments. In 2016-17, the newly developed assessments were piloted by programs. In 2017-18, the shared assessments were fully implemented in all COE licensure programs.

1. Assessment A – Planning Instruction: Candidates must demonstrate their ability to plan instruction for P12 learners. Evidence for this assessment is a minimum of three lesson plans, which are scored on Domain 1 (Planning and Preparation) of the Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching (CDF). The assessment is completed prior to the student teaching semester.

2. Assessment B - Student Teaching Evaluation: Candidates demonstrate their competence as a teacher candidate in the four domains of the Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching (CDF): (1) Planning and Preparation, (2) the Classroom Environment, (3) Instruction, and (4) Professional Responsibilities. This assessment is completed during student teaching and is cumulative across the entire semester of work.

3. Assessment C – Effect on P12 Learning: Candidates demonstrate their ability to plan, teach, and assess a unit of instruction/sequence of lessons. This assessment specifically addresses candidates’ ability to plan and teach a unit of instruction/sequence of lessons, analyze student learning through assessment data, and reflect on their teaching practice to improve their instruction. The assessment is scored on designated components and elements of the Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching (CDF). This assessment is completed during student teaching.

4. Assessment D - Professional Dispositions:  Candidates must demonstrate professional dispositions, including professionalism, communication (verbal and nonverbal), collaboration, reflection, and diversity. This assessment is completed in all field and student teaching experiences.

Collect/analyze student self-reports of SLO achievement via surveys:

Each semester, program completer surveys are distributed by the Dean’s Office to our candidates in their final semester of the program. This data is published in reports aggregated by program in the COE Intranet and is also reported on the COE public website, “Measuring Our Success.”

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:
Other 2:

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

In 2015 -  2016

17 students submitted Student Teaching Evaluation

20 students submitted Professional Dispositions in OP

17 students submitted Professional Dispositions in Student Teaching   

2016 - 2017

16 students submitted Student Teaching Evaluation

16 students submitted Professional Dispositions in OP

14 students submitted Professional Dispositions in Student Teaching   

2017 - 2018

28 students submitted Student Teaching Evaluation

28 students submitted Assessment C Candidate Effect on P-12 Learning (COE Shared)

50 students submitted Professional Dispositions in Student Teaching  

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: Director of Assessment (compiled survey results)

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.

Sem Yr (Multiple Items)        
Program EDSE-BED        
           
Assessment Criterion Target Acceptable Unacceptable Grand Total
KRS 405: Professional Dispositions 1. Character 3     3
  2. Respect 3     3
  3. Work Ethic 3     3
  4. Collaboration 2 1   3
           
KRS 405: Student Teaching Evaluation 3.1, 3.6 (Design) 2 1   3
  3.1, 3.6 (Implement) 2 1   3
  3.4 2 1   3
  3.5 2 1   3
  3.7   3   3
  4.1, 6.4 2 1   3
  4.2 2 1   3
  4.3 2 1   3
  4.4 1 2   3
  4.5 2 1   3
  6.1 2 1   3
  6.3 3     3
           
SECONDARY ALL CANDIDATES - Student Teaching Evaluation Form Sec. St. #05 9 7   16
  Sec. St. #06 10 6   16
  Sec. St. #07 9 7   16
  Sec. St. #08 11 5   16
  Sec. St. #09 9 7   16
  Sec. St. #10 11 6   17
  Sec. St. #12 11 6   17
           
SECONDARY ALL CANDIDATES Professional Dispositions in OP Disp 1 16 4   20
  Disp 2 13 7   20
  Disp 3 13 7   20
  Disp 4 11 9   20
  Disp 5 17 3   20
           
SECONDARY ALL CANDIDATES Professional Dispositions in Student Teaching Disp 1 14 3   17
  Disp 2 11 5   16
  Disp 3 10 7   17
  Disp 4 13 4   17
  Disp 5 11 5   16
           
           
Sem Yr (Multiple Items)          
Program EDSE-BED          
             
Sem Yr (Multiple Items)          
Program EDSE-BED          
             
             
Assessment Criterion Distinguished Proficient Basic Unsatisfactory Grand Total
Assessment A Planning Instruction (COE Shared) 1a 1 13 10   24
  1b   19 4   23
  1c 2 14 8   24
  1d   21 3   24
  1e 1 16 7   24
  1f   16 8   24
             
Assessment B Student Teaching Evaluation (COE Shared) 1a 1 25 2   28
  1b 2 23 3   28
  1c   26 2   28
  1d 3 22 3   28
  1e 2 25 1   28
  1f 2 21 5   28
  2a 2 25     27
  2b   26 1   27
  2c 1 20 6   27
  2d 2 19 6   27
  2e 4 21 2   27
  3a 3 23 1   27
  3b 2 21 4   27
  3c 1 26     27
  3d 2 21 4   27
  3e   26 1   27
  4a 10 15 2   27
  4b 5 18 3   26
  4c 3 16 5   24
  4d 2 22 2   26
  4e 3 20 4   27
  4f 6 20   1 27
             
Assessment C Candidate Effect on P-12 Learning (COE Shared) 1c   26 1 1 28
  1f   25 2 1 28
  3d   24 3 1 28
  4a 7 16 4 1 28
  4b 3 23 2   28
             
Assessment Criterion Meets Expectations Needs Improvement Grand Total    
Assessment D Professional Dispositions (COE Shared) 1 44 5 49    
  2 44 6 50    
  3 43 7 50    
  4 44 6 50    
  5 37 15 52    
  Overall 44 6 50    
             
           
Assessment Criterion Distinguished Proficient Basic Unsatisfactory Grand Total
Assessment B Student Teaching Evaluation (COE Shared) 1a   2 1   3
  1b   2 1   3
  1c   2 1   3
  1d   3     3
  1e   3     3
  1f   1 2   3
  2a 1 2     3
  2b   2 1   3
  2c   3     3
  2d   2 1   3
  2e   2 1   3
  3a   3     3
  3b   2 1   3
  3c   2 1   3
  3d   3     3
  3e   3     3
  4a   3     3
  4b   3     3
  4c 1 2     3
  4d 1 1 1   3
  4e 1 2     3
  4f 1 2     3
             
Assessment C Candidate Effect on P-12 Learning (COE Shared) 1c   1     1
  1f   1     1
  3d   1     1
  4a   1     1
  4b   1     1
             
Professional Dispositions Assessment (COE Shared) 1   16     16
  2   16     16
  3   16     16
  4   16     16
  5   16     16
  Overall   16     16
             
Assessment Criterion Target Acceptable Unacceptable Grand Total  
SECONDARY ALL CANDIDATES - Student Teaching Evaluation Form Sec. St. #05 7 7   14  
  Sec. St. #06 6 8   14  
  Sec. St. #07 8 6   14  
  Sec. St. #08 8 6   14  
  Sec. St. #09 7 7   14  
  Sec. St. #10 6 8   14  
  Sec. St. #12 7 7   14  
             
SECONDARY ALL CANDIDATES Professional Dispositions in Student Teaching Disp 1 5     5  
  Disp 2 4 1   5  
  Disp 3 4 1   5  
  Disp 4 5     5  
  Disp 5 4 1   5  
             

 

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.

During the June 2015 to October 2018 time frame our faculty worked collaboratively meeting on average once a week to fully re-design our curriculum. As part of our de-design process we used the assessment results to inform some of our decisions. For example in the student survey some students pointed out that the many of our courses can be taken in any sequence of their choice. This proved to not be sound for the student’s learning as they could not make strong connections between the courses before our new course sequence. They also could not move as a cohot. We agreed and we now have a locked schedule sequence for when they take the courses so we can better roll out the curriculum and assessments so the content better builds off each other. The students now move as a cohort in our program getting more cohesive exeprience.

I also want to note, we had long discussions about the Rubric language so that assessments could be more consistent in our program.  Our final result included constructing a Program Assessment Portfolio that is scaffolded throughout the program so we can evidence when students are introduced to the SLcluded constructing a Program Assessment Portfolio that is scaffolded throughout the program so we can evidence when students are introduced to the SLOs, reinforced and expected to demonstrate mastery. This portfolio includes all the shared signature assignments. Os, reinforced and expected to demonstrate mastery. This portfolio includes all the shared signature assignments.

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.

The assessment activities caused many new discoveries for our faculty. Our initial discoveries included that many inconsistent practices and interpretations were being made around the assessments. We also realized the scope and sequencing of how the assessments were being scaffolded throughout our program were inconsistent for students. For example, Student A (by choice) could take ITE 401 in the spring of 2015 and later in 2017 take SPED 445 and ITE 440. Student B was taking ITE 440 in the spring of 2015 and ITE 401 in 2017.  By the time they took student teaching classes they were forgetting some of the content which is critical to the shared assessments. Due to this discovery we now require the courses be taken in a certain lock and sequenced order. Although this can cause graduation delays or less choice for the students we believe this is more valuable to their learning of becoming a secondary teacher.

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