Degree Program Assessment Reports : View Reports

Unit: Institute for Teacher Education
Program: Education: Teaching (MEdT)
Degree: Master's
Date: Fri Nov 20, 2020 - 11:45:10 am

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

1. nTASC 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.

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

2. InTASC Standard 2. Learner 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.

3. InTASC 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.

4. InTASC 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 the discipline accessible and meaningful for learners to assure mastery of the content.

5. InTASC 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.

(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.)

6. InTASC 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.

(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.)

7. InTASC 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.

(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.)

8. InTASC 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.

(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.)

9. InTASC 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.

(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.)

10. InTASC 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.

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

Department Website URL: https://coe.hawaii.edu/academics/institute-teacher-education/med-teaching

Student Handbook. URL, if available online: https://sites.google.com/a/hawaii.edu/medt-candidate-handbook/

Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: https://coe.hawaii.edu/medt/programs/medt/forms/

UHM Catalog. Page Number: 210-211

Course Syllabi. URL, if available online:

Other:

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

Curriculum Map File(s) from 2020:

File (11/19/2020)

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.

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):

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 November 1, 2018 and October 31, 2020?

Yes

No (skip to question 17)

7) What best describes the program-level learning assessment activities that took place for the period November 1, 2018 and October 31, 2020? (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)

Investigate other pressing issue related to student learning achievement for the program (explain in question 8)

Other:

8) Briefly explain the assessment activities that took place since November 2018.

Throughout the June 2018 to October 2020 time frame, our program has held a dedicated time to discuss assessment practices after our monthly faculty meetings and continues to make time each month for these discussions. During these meetings, we have shared and discussed information about student performance on the common assessments and engaged in collaboration to ensure we are all applying the rubrics in a manner that is generally consistent. We have discussed results from the program assessments partner surveys to reflect on aspects of our program.

Specific activities completed since 2018 include:

Formal scoring reliability activities and discussions of validity for common assessments
Longitudinal analysis of data
Review of program completer surveys
Review and callibration of program curriculum maps and core syllabi
Review of informal and formal feedback from mentors, school partners and alumni
Reconnection outreach campaign to program graduates
Discussion of the mission and vision across and within program

Additionally, as part of the accreditation process for all teacher education, initial licensure programs have engaged in ongoing discussions and exercises with the four COE shared assessments which are scored on designated components and elements of the Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching (CDF).

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.

The COE licensure programs use key assessments to assess student learning across all licensure programs. These shared assessments were fully implemented In 2017-18 school year across all COE licensure programs. Within MEdT students submit these across the various field based courses. The data from each assessment is collected within our internal data systems and used for ongoing review.

2018-2019

34 students submitted Assessment A Planning Instruction

38 students submitted Assessment B Student Teaching Evaluation

48 students submitted Assessment C Candidate Effect on P-12 Learning

49 students submitted Assessment D Professional Dispositions in Student Teaching

2019-2020

66 students submitted Assessment A Planning Instruction

40 students submitted Assessment B Student Teaching Evaluation

58 students submitted Assessment C Candidate Effect on P-12 Learning

61 students submitted Assessment D 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 from the evaluation, analysis, interpretation of evidence (checked in question 12). For example, report the percentage of students who achieved each SLO.

2018-2019

Assessment A: 100% met either Basic or Proficient

Assessment B: 100% met either Basic or Proficient

Assessment C: 100% met either Basic or Proficient

Assessment D: 100% met or exceeded expectations

2019-2020

Assessment A: 98% met either Basic or Proficient

Assessment B: 100% met either Basic or Proficient

Assessment C: 100% met either Basic or Proficient

Assessment D: 90% met or exceeded expectations

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 its findings/results.

Throughout the June 2018 to October 2020 time frame, we have made strategic programmatic adjustments based on student performance data and constituent feedback. We reviewed our curriculum map of courses, refined course syllabi for core program courses and developed common assignments for each of core courses. We are exploring how to better leverage the professional specialization courses to better integrate the expertise of faculty and support students' personal inquiry. We are currently collaborating across departments with the Special Education faculty to revise our program structure for our Dual Special Education and Secondary Licensure option. Additionally, we have made targeted efforts to better connect with our programs alumni through a targeted email campaign dedicated to reconnect to our alumni and better integrate their insights and expertise into our programs efforts.

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 throughout the June 2018 to October 2020 time frame, have supported our teams commitment to reflection and excellence. These efforts have supported instructional adjustments, as well as the onboarding of new faculty and the development of new innovations and recommitments to our mission and vision. In this time period we have retailored our partnership with the Special Education department, piloted a new cohort designed alongside our Professional Development School Partners, and reconnected with program alumni all while continuing to strengthen our efforts to prepare knowledgeable, effective and caring educators for the students of Hawai’i.

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

We engaged in assessment activities throughout this period.