Unit: Education (multiple departments)
Program: Professional Educational Practice (EdD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Fri Nov 16, 2018 - 3:59:05 pm

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

1. Leaders in professional educational practice work collaboratively to solve problems and implement plans of action

(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. Apply research methodology and/or scholarly inquiry techniques specific to one’s field of study., 4. Critically analyze, synthesize, and utilize information and data related to one’s field of study., 5. Proficiently communicate and disseminate information in a manner relevant to the field and intended audience., 6. Conduct research or projects as a responsible and ethical professional, including consideration of and respect for other cultural perspectives., 7. Interact professionally with others.)

2. Leaders in professional educational practice are able to apply research skills to bring about improvements in practice.

(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. Apply research methodology and/or scholarly inquiry techniques specific to one’s field of study., 4. Critically analyze, synthesize, and utilize information and data related to one’s field of study., 5. Proficiently communicate and disseminate information in a manner relevant to the field and intended audience., 6. Conduct research or projects as a responsible and ethical professional, including consideration of and respect for other cultural perspectives., 7. Interact professionally with others.)

3. Leaders in professional educational practice can reflect critically and ethically on matters of educational importance.

(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. Apply research methodology and/or scholarly inquiry techniques specific to one’s field of study., 4. Critically analyze, synthesize, and utilize information and data related to one’s field of study., 5. Proficiently communicate and disseminate information in a manner relevant to the field and intended audience., 6. Conduct research or projects as a responsible and ethical professional, including consideration of and respect for other cultural perspectives., 7. Interact professionally with others.)

4. Leaders in professional educational practice are able to take a broad, interdisciplinary perspective on a wide variety of educational issues

(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. Apply research methodology and/or scholarly inquiry techniques specific to one’s field of study., 4. Critically analyze, synthesize, and utilize information and data related to one’s field of study., 5. Proficiently communicate and disseminate information in a manner relevant to the field and intended audience., 6. Conduct research or projects as a responsible and ethical professional, including consideration of and respect for other cultural perspectives., 7. Interact professionally with others.)

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

Department Website URL: https://coe.hawaii.edu/academics/professional-practice-edd
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: update in progress
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: https://coe.hawaii.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/Brochure_EdDv2.pdf
UHM Catalog. Page Number: http://www.catalog.hawaii.edu/grad-ed/graduate3.html#doctoral
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: none, but program courses are listed at https://coe.hawaii.edu/academics/professional-practice-edd
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.

Cohorts II and III engaged in course evaluations; Cohort II completed end of the program assessments. Cohort II also produced written dissertations and presented their studies in conference style “oral defenses”. Such activities were evaluated by faculty and advisors.

 

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.

All 28 members of Cohort II and all 29 members of Cohort III.

 

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.

SLO #1: Work collaboratively to solve problems and implement plans of action.

The program has been very successful in creating an opportunity for our learners to work collaboratively to solve problems and implement plans of action.  Based on the Ed.D. Consultancy Project Evaluation conducted in January 2016 (ECPE, 2016), the learners of Cohort 2 reported spending as much as 80 hours within a 1 to 2 weeks period in client meetings and as much as 160+ hours for at least a 4 week period in team meetings in working with their client, advisors, and mentors in completing their Consultancy Project.  In addition, learners also reported that being members in the Consultancy Teams led to group synergy, which allowed the diverse talents of individual group members to be unleashed and utilized to complete their group tasks.

In that same evaluation, Faculty Advisors and Field Mentors confirmed their learners’ responses by reporting they having spent as much as 160+ hours for at least a 4-week period in meetings and working with their assigned teams.  Moreover, the Clients themselves universally reported active participation and collaboration with their Consultancy Teams with effective lines of communication throughout the process, which they felt were a major factor in the success of their assigned teams.

In 2015-2016, a group of faculty, mentors, and cohort II students implemented a research study analyzing the impacts of consultancy projects on both student and community client learning. The study used practice theory framework and analyzed both existing and new data from cohort I and II projects as well as data from community partners. The project found that consultancy projects, as a collaborative “inquiry-in-action”, demonstrate a potential to transform students’ and clients’ practices by enhancing the cultural-discursive, material-economic, and social-political arrangements that shape the leadership practice in consultancy project partnerships.

 

SLO #2: Application of research to bring about improvements in problems of practice.

The program has succeeded in giving an opportunity for our learners to bring about improvements in problems of practice.  Based on the ECPE (2016), the learners of Cohort 2 reported spending as much as 160+ hours for at least a 4 week period conducting all facets of the research process (i.e., literature review, data gathering, data analysis, write-up) towards completing their Consultancy Project.  In addition, many learners commented how the application of research taken to complete the Consultancy Project well-prepared them for their own dissertation research. This was also confirmed by the findings of the research study that explored the impacts of consultancy project on student learning.

Faculty Advisors and Field Mentors in ECPE (2016) also reported spending up to 80 hours for 2 weeks working with their respective learners in providing feedback and guidance; reaffirming the application of research that was taking place.  Moreover, Clients of the Consultancy Project expressed their appreciation and gratitude for the work undertaken by their respective Consultancy Teams as well as shared how they intended to implement the recommendations listed in their respective final reports.

       Finally, many of the cohort’s dissertation topics focused specifically on trying to improve current problems in education.  For example, topics ranged from the effectiveness of coaching, to leadership and organizational structures and their potential impact on independent schools, to educational crises leadership.  Hence, it is a promising sign that our learners are trying to address current problems in education.

 

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.

Modifications to the EdD Program for Cohort III  (e.g., curriculum, faculty assignments, program governance, etc.). were based largely on the assessment results of Cohort II. Such revisions continue for Cohort III as we gather assessment information from this current cohort to improve their remaining time in the program.

 

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 management of every cohort gets better based on assessments of the previous cohort and the current cohort in progress.

 

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