Unit: Special Education
Program: Special Education (MEd)
Degree: Master's
Date: Wed Nov 14, 2018 - 11:14:45 pm

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

1. CEC Standard 1: Assessment: Special education specialists use valid and reliable assessment practices to minimize bias.

2. CEC Standard 7: Collaboration: Special education specialists collaborate with stakeholders to improve programs, services, and outcomes for individuals with exceptionalities and their families.

(7. Interact professionally with others.)

3. CEC Standard 4: Research and Inquiry: Special education specialists conduct, evaluate, and use inquiry to guide professional practice.

(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.)

4. CEC Standard 3: Programs, Services, and Outcomes: Special education specialists facilitate the continuous improvement of general and special education programs, supports, and services at the classroom, school, and systems levels for individuals with exceptionalitie

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

5. CEC Standard 6: Professional and Ethical Practice: Special education specialists use foundational knowledge of the field and professional Ethical Principles and Practice Standards to inform special education practice, engage in lifelong learning, advance the profession, and perform leadership responsibilities to promote the success of professional colleagues and individuals with exceptionalities.

(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.)

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

Department Website URL:
Student Handbook. URL, if available online:
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online:
Other: CEC Website: http://www.cec.sped.org/Content/NavigationMenu/ProfessionalDevelopment/ProfessionalStandards/?from=tlcHome
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 department continuously reviews candidate data during committee, program, and faculty meetings.  Faculty reviewed data and feedback from candidates, course instructors, and program faculty to determine changes to the program, courses, or products.  Faculty who taught courses in the M.Ed. Program met each semester between the June 1, 2015 and October 31, 2018 period to review candidate SLO data for the M.Ed. courses taught during the prior semester. Faculty reflected on the data of individual courses and of the program overall. Faculty also discussed the ILOs and the examples of products for each ILO and determined where each ILO was aligned with a SLO (CEC Advanced Standards). Faculty also discussed whether one product  (CITI Modules) in a specific course (SPED 688) should continue to be included as an assessment product since not all M.Ed. candidates take SPED 688. Faculty decided that the course and product should remain because of it’s importance in regards to knowledge and ethics in conducting research and because candidates who are not required to take SPED 688 complete the product in another course in their program.

Assessment data was also shared and discussed by the Teacher Education Committee (TEC) each semester during this timeframe (Fall 2015 – Spring 2018).

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: Plan A/B paper
Other 2: Issues project and paper

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

In Fall 2015 there were 42 candidates who completed assessment products (SPED 602, SPED 641b, SPED 688, SPED 500/695/699).

Spring 2016 there were 53 candidates who completed assessment products (SPED 642, SPED 500/695/699).

Candidates (n=84) enrolled in core courses in Fall 2015 and Spring 2016 with required assessment products were assessed.  All M.Ed. candidates enrolled in courses with required assessment products were included in this sample.

In Fall 2016 there were 83 candidates who completed assessment products (SPED 602, SPED 641b, SPED 688, SPED 500/695/699).

Spring 2017 there were 76 candidates who completed assessment products (SEPD 641b, SPED 642, SPED 500/695/699).

Summer 2017 there were 30 candidates who completed assessment products (SPED 641b, SPED 688, SPED 500/695/699).

Candidates (n=145) enrolled in core courses in Fall 2016, Spring 2017, and Summer 2017 with required assessment products were assessed.  All M.Ed. candidates enrolled in courses with required assessment products were included in this sample.

In Fall 2017 there were 53 candidates who completed assessment products (SPED 602, SPED 641b, SPED 688, SPED 500/695/699).

Spring 2018 there were 70 candidates who completed assessment products (SPED 642, SPED 500/695/699).

Summer 2018 there were 20 candidates who completed assessment products (SPED 641b, SPED 500/695/699).

Candidates (n=134) enrolled in core courses in Fall 2017, Spring 2018, and Summer 2018 with required assessment products were assessed.  All M.Ed. candidates enrolled in courses with required assessment products were included in this sample.

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.

Fall 2015 – Spring 2016

Assessment 1. Applied Issues Project in SPED 602 (Fall 2015). Of the 20 candidates who completed the Applied Issues Project in SPED 602, 85% of the candidates scored Target, 5% scored Acceptable, and 10% score Unacceptable for SLO: CEC Advanced Standard 6: Professional and Ethical Practice and ILO 5: Communication Skills and ILO 7: Professional Responsibility.

Assessment 2. Issues in Special Education Paper in SPED 641b (Fall 2015).  Of the 14 candidates who completed the Issues in Special Education paper in SPED 641b, 50% of the candidates scored Target, 43% scored Acceptable, and 7% scored Unacceptable for SLO: CEC Advanced Standard 3: Programs, Services, and Outcomes and ILO 1: Knowledge and Understanding.

Assessment 3. Exam in SPED 642 (Spring 2016). Of the 49 candidates who completed the exam in SPED 642, 45% of the candidates scored Target, 41% scored Acceptable, and 14% scored Unacceptable for SLOs: CEC Advanced Standards 1: Assessment and 4: Research and Inquiry and ILO 2: Knowledge and Understanding.

Assessment 4. CITI Modules in SPED 688 (Fall 2015). Of the four candidates who completed the CITI Modules in SPED 688, all 4 candidates scored Target for a rate of 100% for SLO: CEC Advanced Standard 6: Professional & Ethical Practice and ILO 6: Professional Responsibility.

 Assessment 5. Plan A/B Paper in SPED 500,695, 699 (Fall 2015; Spring 2016). Of the four candidates who completed  the Plan B paper in SPED 500, SPED 695, or SPED 699 in Fall 2015, 45% of the candidates scored Target, 25 % scored Acceptable, and no candidate scored Unacceptable for SLO: CEC  Advanced Standard 4: Research and Inquiry and ILO 3: Intellectual and Applied Skills ILO 4: Intellectual & Applied Skills and 100% of the candidates scored Target for SLO: CEC Advanced Standard 7: Collaboration and ILO 6: Professional Responsibility. 

Of the three candidates who completed the Plan B paper in SPED 695 in Spring 2016, 67% scored Target, 33% scored Acceptable, and no candidate scored Unacceptable for SLO: CEC Advanced Standard 4: Research and Inquiry, ILO 3: Intellectual and Applied Skills, ILO 4 Intellectual & Applied Skills, CEC Advanced Standard 7: Collaboration and ILO 6: Professional Responsibility.

Fall 2016 – Summer 2017

Assessment 1. Applied Issues Project in SPED 602 (Fall 2016). Of the 47 candidates who completed the Applied Issues Project in SPED 602, 66% of the candidates scored Target, 23% scored Acceptable, and 11% score Unacceptable for SLO: CEC Advanced Standard 6: Professional and Ethical Practice and ILO 5:  Communication Skills and ILO 7: Professional Responsibility.

Assessment 2. Issues in Special Education Paper in SPED 641b (Fall 2016, Spring 17, Summer 17).  Of the 65 candidates who completed the Issues in Special Education Paper in SPED 641b, 60% of the candidates scored Target, 40% scored Acceptable, and no candidate scored Unacceptable for SLO: CEC Advanced Standard 3: Programs, Services, and Outcomes and ILO 1: Knowledge and Understanding.

Assessment 3. Exam in SPED 642 (Spring 2017). Of the 24 candidates who completed the exam in SPED 642, 33% of the candidates scored Target, 38% scored Acceptable, and 29% scored Unacceptable for SLOs: CEC Advanced Standards 1: Assessment and 4: Research and Inquiry and ILO 2: Knowledge and Understanding.

Assessment 4. CITI Modules in SPED 688 (Fall 2016, Summer 2017). Of the 18 candidates who completed the CITI Modules in SPED 688, 50% of the candidates scored Target, 50% scored Acceptable, and no candidate scored Unacceptable for SLO: CEC Advanced Standard 6: Professional & Ethical Practice and ILO 6: Professional Responsibility.

  Assessment 5. Plan A/B Paper in SPED 695, 699 (Fall 2016; Spring 2017;   Summer 2017). No Plan B Papers were   completed by candidates Fall 2016.

Of the 16 candidates who completed the Plan B paper in SPED 695 or SPED 699 in Spring  2017, 44% of the candidates scored Target, 56 % scored Acceptable, and no candidate scored Unacceptable for SLO: CEC Advanced Standard 4: Research and Inquiry and ILO 3: Intellectual and Applied Skills, ILO 4: Intellectual & Applied Skills and 50% of the candidates scored Target, 50% score Acceptable, and no candidate scored Unacceptable for SLO: CEC Advanced Standard 7: Collaboration and ILO: 6 Professional Responsibility.  

Of the five candidates who completed the Plan B paper in SPED 699 in Summer 2017, 60% scored Target, 40% scored Acceptable, and no candidate scored Unacceptable for SLO: CEC Advanced Standard 4: Research and Inquiry, ILO 3: Intellectual and Applied Skills, ILO 4: Intellectual & Applied Skills, CEC Advanced Standard 7: Collaboration and ILO 6: Professional Responsibility.

            Fall 2017 – Summer 2018

Assessment 1. Applied Issues Project in SPED 602 (Fall 2017). Of the 29 candidates who completed the Applied Issues Project in SPED 602, 86% of the candidates scored Target, 14% scored Acceptable, and no one scored Unacceptable for SLO: CEC Advanced Standard 6: Professional and Ethical Practice and ILO 5:  Communication Skills and ILO 7: Professional Responsibility.

Assessment 2. Issues in Special Education Paper in SPED 641b (Fall 2017, Summer 18).  Of the 25 candidates who completed the Issues in Special Education Paper in SPED 641b, 52% of the candidates scored Target, 28% scored Acceptable, and 5% scored Unacceptable for SLO: CEC Advanced Standard 3: Programs, Services, and Outcomes and ILO 1: Knowledge and Understanding.

Assessment 3. Exam in SPED 642 (Spring 2018). Of the 51 candidates who completed the exam in SPED 642, 84% of the candidates scored Target, 14% scored Acceptable, and 2% scored Unacceptable for SLO: CEC Advanced Standard 1: Assessment. Of the 51 candidates who completed the exam in SPED 642, 70% of the candidates scored Target, 24% scored Acceptable, and 6% scored Unacceptable for SLO: CEC Advanced Standard 4: Research and Inquiry and Assessment and ILO 2: Knowledge and Understanding.

Assessment 4. CITI Modules in SPED 688 (Fall 2017). Of the three candidates who completed the CITI Modules in SPED 688, all 3 candidates scored Target for a rate of 100% for SLO: CEC Advanced Standard 6: Professional & Ethical Practice and ILO 6: Professional Responsibility.

Assessment 5. Plan A/B Paper in SPED 695, 699 (Fall 2017; Spring 2018; Summer 2018). Of the 15 candidates who completed the Plan B paper in SPED 695 or SPED 699 in Fall 2017, 73% of the candidates scored Target, 27% scored Acceptable, and no candidate scored Unacceptable for SLO: CEC Advanced Standard 4: Research and Inquiry and ILO 3: Intellectual and Applied Skills, ILO 4: Intellectual & Applied Skills and SLO: CEC Advanced Standard 7: Collaboration and ILO 6: Professional Responsibility.

Of the 19 candidates who completed the Plan B paper in SPED 695 or SPED 699 in Spring  2018, 79% of the candidates scored Target, 21 % scored Acceptable, and no candidate scored Unacceptable for SLO: CEC Advanced Standard 4: Research and Inquiry and ILO 3: Intellectual and Applied Skills, ILO 4: Intellectual & Applied Skills and 74% of the candidates scored Target, 26% score Acceptable, and no candidate scored Unacceptable for SLO: CEC Advanced Standard 7: Collaboration and ILO: 6 Professional Responsibility. 

  Of the two candidates who completed the Plan B paper in SPED 699 in Summer 2018, 100% of the candidates  scored   Target and no candidate scored Acceptable or Unacceptable for SLO: CEC Advanced Standard 4: Research and Inquiry, ILO 3: Intellectual and Applied Skills, ILO 4: Intellectual & Applied Skills, CEC Advanced Standard 7: Collaboration and ILO 6: Professional Responsibility.

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: Sequence of SPED 641b was changed to facilitate students taking the course in the summer rather than having a 9 credit load one semester during their program.

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

Results of the five assessments indicate mastery of the CEC Advanced standards, with the strong majority of candidates receiving a rating of Target or Acceptable on all assessments. One course (SPED 642) consistently had some candidates who received Unacceptable as a result of not performing well on the exam. However, the majority (70%+) passed the exam with a rating of Target or Acceptable. Overall, the results indicate strong candidate mastery of the SLOs, CEC Advanced standards, and the ILOs.

The department continuously reviews candidate data during committee, program, and faculty meetings.  Faculty reviewed data and feedback from candidates, course instructors, and program faculty to determine changes to the program, courses, or products. Several changes were discussed by the M.Ed. committee and faculty. One change that was made was that SPED 641b is now offered several semesters including the summer which allows candidates to take the course during the summer rather than have a 9 credit course load during one semester of their program.  Another change was the alignment of the ILOs with the SLOs, CEC Advanced Standards, and the assessment products. When the ILOs were approved the M.Ed. committee members met to discuss which products were best aligned with the ILOs. The committee also aligned the ILOs with the SLOs, CEC Advanced Standards. Recommendations regarding alignment of SLOs with ILOs and assessment products were brought to the M.Ed. faculty who discussed the recommendations and voted on the changes.  A third area was that because SPED 688 is not a required course in all M.Ed. programs the M.Ed. committee and faculty discussed whether it should continue to be included as a course with an assessment product. A decision was made by the faculty to retain the course with an assessment product because of the benefit to the candidates who took the course. It was also recommended that the product be incorporated in other courses. The discussion continues as faculty are suggesting other products that may benefit the candidates more because instructors report the candidates need more scaffolding with the development of their Plan B Papers. At this time no final decision has been made regarding this suggestion.

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 faculty is extremely pleased with the results of the assessment products. Data strongly support candidates' competencies at meeting (Acceptable) or exceeding (Target) course and program SLOs and ILOs. Faculty involvement in providing data for product SLOs and ILOs and reflecting on that data provided useful information for further developing the M.Ed. program. As a result of reflection activities one course is being offered more frequently and there is discussion regarding adding another course or revising a current course to provide more scaffolding of the develop of the Plan A/B paper.

Faculty also acknowledge the importance of recruitment activities and financial resources provided by two scholarships (SPED Scholarship and STAR Scholarship) in supporting our M.Ed candidates.  A culminating achievement is the publication of at least three candidates' Plan B papers in a peer-reviewed journal.

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