Unit: Educational Psychology
Program: Educational Psychology (PhD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Wed Nov 14, 2018 - 5:08:19 pm

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

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

(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.)

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

(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.)

3. Educational Psychology graduate students present scholarly research effectively.

(5. Proficiently communicate and disseminate information in a manner relevant to the field and intended audience., 7. Interact professionally with others.)

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

(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., 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:
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 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.

8. Collect/evaluate student work/performance to determine SLO achievement

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

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

3. (Skills) Faculty members rated candidates' dissertation 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 the Collaborative Institional Training Initiative (CITI) on-line course on the ethical treatment of human participants in research.

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

In the final semester of the students' program, the Dean's Office distributed an online survey which asked students to self-report the extent to which the program helped them to become (a) more knowledgeable in the field and (b) more skillful in the field and in the areas of research, writing, and making professional presentations.

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: Dissertation proposal
Other 2: Successful completion of CITI online training

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

2015-2016

Ratings of candidates' dissertation proposals (required of all students): 1

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

Ratings of candidates’ dissertation presentations (required of all students): 2

Candidates' evaluated for completion of the human subjects' training (required of all students): 1

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

2016-2017

Ratings of candidates' dissertation proposals (required of all students): 0

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

Ratings of candidates’ dissertation presentations (required of all students): 2

Candidates' evaluated for completion of the human subjects' training (required of all students): 0

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

2017-2018

Ratings of candidates' dissertation proposals (required of all students): 10

Ratings of candidates’ dissertations (required of all students): 6

Ratings of candidates’ dissertation presentations (required of all students): 6

Candidates' evaluated for completion of the human subjects' training (required of all students): 5

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

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: 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.

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

Faculty Assessment of SLO 1

2015-2016        
EDEP Proposal Literature Review Exemplary Satisfactory Unacceptable Total
Context 0 1 0 1
Organization 0 1 0 1
Statement of research question 0 1 0 1
Style and writing conventions 0 1 0 1
         
EDEP Final Literature Review Exemplary Satisfactory Unacceptable Total
Context 2 0 0 2
Organization 2 0 0 2
Revision 2 0 0 2
Statement of research question 2 0 0 2
Style and writing conventions 2 0 0 2
         
2016-2017        
EDEP Proposal Literature Review Exemplary Satisfactory Unacceptable Total
Context 0 0 0 0
Organization 0 0 0 0
Statement of research question 0 0 0 0
Style and writing conventions 0 0 0 0
         
EDEP Final Literature Review Exemplary Satisfactory Unacceptable Total
Context 2 0 0 2
Organization 1 1 0 2
Revision 2 0 0 2
Statement of research question 2 0 0 2
Style and writing conventions 1 1 0 2
         
2017-2018        
EDEP Proposal Literature Review Exemplary Satisfactory Unacceptable Total
Context 6 4 0 10
Organization 6 4 0 10
Statement of research question 8 2 0 10
Style and writing conventions 5 5 0 10
         
EDEP Final Literature Review Exemplary Satisfactory Unacceptable Total
Context 4 2 0 6
Organization 4 2 0 6
Revision 5 1 0 6
Statement of research question 5 1 0 6
Style and writing conventions 6 0 0 6

Student Self-Assessment of SLO 1 on Completion Surveys

The doctoral program in educational psychology helped me to . . .

2015-2016 Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Total
Become more knowledgeable about learning and development. 2 0 0 0 0 2
Become more knowledgeable about research methods. 1 1 0 0 0 2
Become more knowledgeable about student assessment. 1 1 0 0 0 2
             
2016-2017 Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Total
Become more knowledgeable about learning and development. 1 1 0 0 0 2
Become more knowledgeable about research methods. 2 0 0 0 0 2
Become more knowledgeable about student assessment. 1 1 0 0 0 2
             
2017-2018 Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Total
Become more knowledgeable about learning and development. 4 1 0 0 0 5
Become more knowledgeable about research methods. 4 1 0 0 0 5
Become more knowledgeable about student assessment. 1 4 0 0 0

 

5

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

Faculty Assessment of SLO 2

2015-2016        
EDEP Proposal Method Section Exemplary Satisfactory Unacceptable Total
Data analysis 0 1 0 1
Participants 0 1 0 1
Procedures 0 1 0 1
Research design 0 1 0 1
         
EDEP Final Method Section Exemplary Satisfactory Unacceptable Total
Data analysis 2 0 0 2
Participants 2 0 0 2
Procedures 2 0 0 2
Research design 2 0 0 2
Revision 2 0 0 2
         
2016-2017        
EDEP Proposal Method Section Exemplary Satisfactory Unacceptable Total
Data analysis 0 0 0 0
Participants 0 0 0 0
Procedures 0 0 0 0
Research design 0 0 0 0
         
EDEP Final Method Section Exemplary Satisfactory Unacceptable Total
Data analysis 2 0 0 2
Participants 2 0 0 2
Procedures 2 0 0 2
Research design 2 0 0 2
Revision 2 0 0 2
         
2017-2018        
EDEP Proposal Method Section Exemplary Satisfactory Unacceptable Total
Data analysis 6 4 0 10
Participants 7 3 0 10
Procedures 5 5 0 10
Research design 8 2 0 10
         
EDEP Final Method Section Exemplary Satisfactory Unacceptable Total
Data analysis 4 2 0 6
Participants 5 1 0 6
Procedures 3 2 1 6
Research design 4 2 0 6
Revision 3 2 1 6

Student Self-Assessment of SLO 2 on Completion Surveys

The doctoral program in educational psychology helped me to . . .

2015-2016  Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Total
Develop my ability to apply research skills. 1 1 0 0 0 2
             
2016-2017 Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Total
Develop my ability to apply research skills. 2 0 0 0 0 2
             
2017-2018 Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Total
Develop my ability to apply research skills. 4 0 1 0 0 5

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

Faculty Assessment of SLO 3

2015-2016        
EDEP Research Presentation Exemplary Satisfactory Unacceptable Total
Attention to the audience's perspective 2 0 0 2
Clarity and organization 2 0 0 2
Summary of the research 2 0 0 2
Time limitations 2 0 0 2
Visual aids 2 0 0 2
         
2016-2017        
EDEP Research Presentation Exemplary Satisfactory Unacceptable Total
Attention to the audience's perspective 2 0 0 2
Clarity and organization 2 0 0 2
Summary of the research 2 0 0 2
Time limitations 2 0 0 2
Visual aids 2 0 0 2
         
2017-2018        
EDEP Research Presentation Exemplary Satisfactory Unacceptable Total
Attention to the audience's perspective 3 3 0 6
Clarity and organization 4 2 0 6
Summary of the research 3 3 0 6
Time limitations 5 1 0 6
Visual aids 3 3 0 6

Student Self-Assessment of SLO 3 on Completion Surveys

The doctoral program in educational psychology helped me to . . .

2015-2016  Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Total
Develop my professional presentation skills. 1 1 0 0 0 2
             
2016-2017 Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Total
Develop my professional presentation skills. 1   0 0 0 2
             
2017-2018 Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Total
Develop my professional presentation skills. 1 3 1 0 0 5

Faculty Assessment of SLO 4

All students successfully completed the on-line Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) course on the ethical treatment of human participants in research.

Student Self-Assessment of SLO 4 on Completion Surveys

2015-2016  Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Total
Apply ethical considerations to research with human participants. 2 0 0 0 0 2
             
2016-2017 Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Total
Apply ethical considerations to research with human participants. 1 1 0 0 0 2
             
2017-2018 Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Total
Apply ethical considerations to research with human participants. 3 1 1 0 0 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.

Celebration of student success!

The faculty is pleased that the ratings of student proposals and dissertations appear to show improvement from 2015 to 2018. They also noted that the dissertation ratings were higher than those of the proposals, perhaps also suggesting positive change across time. We celebrated these successes.

Students' Out-of-Course Experience Changes

In the comment section of the student completion survey, one student commented on needing more guidance for choosing the dissertation chair and committee members, and another student commented on wanting more opportunities for students to connect with one another. The faculty discussed convening a workshop for students to discuss how to choose a chair and committee members and that such an event would also provide an opportunity for students to connect more with each other.

Assessment Procedure Changes

The faculty discussed a result from the student completion survey that indicated that a few students were dissatisfied with funding from the Department. The item was stated, “How satisfied were you with funding you received from your department?” The Department has limited funding for graduate students, but faculty members try to bring funding opportunities from the College and University to students’ attention. Thus, we decided to change that item to, “How satisfied were you with funding you received from the Department, College, or University?” in order to reflect other sources of funding that are available to students.

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.

No other comments.

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

Not applicable.