Degree Program Assessment Reports : View Reports

Unit: Education (multiple departments)
Program: Professional Educational Practice (EdD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Mon Nov 09, 2020 - 9:08:22 am

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.

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

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

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

Department Website URL: https://coe.hawaii.edu/edea/programs/edd/

Student Handbook. URL, if available online: https://coe.hawaii.edu/edea/programs/edd/

Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: https://manoa.hawaii.edu/catalog/schools-colleges/education/coe-grad/

UHM Catalog. Page Number: http://www.catalog.hawaii.edu/grad-ed/graduate3.html#doctoral

Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal

Other:

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

Curriculum Map File(s) from 2020:

File (11/09/2020)

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.

Cohorts III and IV engaged in course evaluations. Cohort III also produced written dissertations and presented their studies in conference style “oral defenses.” Such activities were evaluated by students, 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 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 from the evaluation, analysis, interpretation of evidence (checked in question 12). 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 opportunities for our learners to work collaboratively to solve problems and implement plans of action. A keystone of the EdD in Professional Practice program is our Group Consultancy Project (GCP) which is one of two key research program elements and is collaborative as opposed to the dissertation which is individualized. The GCP is derived from client/community partner interest with a problem that is practically oriented in the present day. For the students, the GCP is advisory and service oriented. Students are grouped into research teams of three or more and are guided by a faculty member and field mentor(s)/advisor(s). The focus here is on preparing educational leaders to exemplify a skill set that includes deep knowledge of interdisciplinary inquiry, collaboration, research abilities, and critical and ethical reflection on matters of educational importance.

GCP helps doctoral students become “stewards of practice” -- individuals who conduct research that is rigorous, ethical, and makes positive difference in the lives of individuals, families, schools, and communities; who work toward social justice and equity; and engage in reciprocal growth. GCPs as ecological spaces of learning communities comprised by doctoral students and clients --collaborate in an organic practice, generate new experiences, learn from each other.

Faculty Advisors, Field Mentors and Clients universally reported active participation and collaboration with their GCP Teams with effective lines of communication throughout the process, which they felt were a major factor in the success of their assigned teams.

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. (i.e., literature review, data gathering, data analysis, write-up) towards completing their GCP.

Community organizations, K-12 schools, School Systems, and/or campuses of higher education apply for the GCP with a problem of practice that must be framed such that a small team (2-4 students) along with a faculty advisor and community mentor(s) can develop a broad understanding of the problem, collect and analyze data, and present a report that possesses a set of recommended solutions. These problems are complex, framed around questions of equity, ethics, and social justice, and require multifaceted solutions.

The investment of the EdD in Professional Practice to collaborate with these community and educational partner-clients is two fold: 1) as educational leaders, our students present real solutions to these partners which strengthens, deepens, and perpetuates the program’s relationships and connections; and 2) as educational leaders, our students apply their learned knowledge and skills to solve “real life” problems.

Moreover, Clients of the GCP expressed their appreciation and gratitude for the work undertaken by their respective GCP Teams as well as shared how they intended to implement the recommendations listed in their respective final reports. In addition, many learners commented how the application of research taken to complete the GCP well-prepared them for their own dissertation research.

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

The program has provided our learners opportunities for assessment which included critical reflection. Course curricula, the GCP, and the Dissertation in Practice (DiP) process possess hallmarks of ethical reflection. For example, in a Spring 2020 assessment, students were asked, in part, to assess their levels of contribution and effort to the course as well their ability to reflect ethically and critically. 79% of the respondents assessed both items of very good to excellent.

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

The manifestation of the ability of our learners to take broad, interdisciplinary perspectives on a wide vareity of educational issues is best illustrated via a sample of GCP descriptions and DiPs.

Here are the GCP titles from Cohort III:

Native Hawaiian Education Evaluation Design

Native Hawaiian Education Council

Ea Ecoversity Indigenous Research Design

Kū a Kanaka Indigenous Research Institute

Nā Hopena Aʻo: Strengthening a Culture of Learning and Collaboration

Office of Hawaiian Education, HIDOE

Keeping Waldorf Education Innovative and increasing enrollment

Honolulu Waldorf School

The Waiʻanae Teacher Development Program Effectiveness Study
- INPEACE Kulia & Ka Lama Education Academy
Awareness of the HTSB Code of Ethics Among In-Service Educators

Hawaiʻi Teacher Standards Board

Koa‘e Noho i ke Alo Pali

Ke Kulaʻo Samuel M. Kamakau, LPCS

Social-Emotional Learning and School Climate Initiative

University Lab School

Here is a sample of DiP titles from Cohort III:

Lighting the Path: Concepts of Female Leadership in ʻĀina Educational Based Nonprofits
Developing Educator Identity, Perspective, and Praxis to Advance Learning for ʻŌiwi Hawaiʻi Learners
Papakū Makawalu: A Portal for Hānau Ma Ka Lolo
The Struggle was Real: The Journey - and Truth - of Founding a Charter School in Hawai‘i
No ka Hoʻonaʻauao ʻŌiwi Hawaiʻi Pono: Ke Kālailai ʻAna i ka Papahana Hale Noho Haumāna Hoʻonaʻauao ʻŌiwi Hawaiʻi
Shaping the Mindset: A Case Study of an Elementary School International Exchange Program
Student Voices at UH Hilo: "Do I Belong Here?" A Case Study on Student Perception of Community-Engaged Teaching & How it Impacts Their Sense of Belonging at UH Hilo
Charanke and Hip Hop: The Argument for Re-Storying the Education of Ainu in Diaspora Through Performance Ethnography
Learning to “Fight like a Girl”: A Narrative Exploration of Female Leadership Development through Intercollegiate Athletics
Embracing the Model Code of Ethics for Educators Across Multiple Jurisdictions: An Exploratory Multiple Case Study
Understanding Teacher Retention Through the Lens of Secondary Mathematics Teachers in Hawai'i: A Mixed Methods Study
A Narrative Inquiry: Decolonizing Practices with Filipino Community College Students in Hawaiʻi
SEEQing Students' Voices: High Schoolers' Reflections of their Post-Middle School Experiences
Mid-level School Leadership Evaluation: An Exploratory Case Study
There is Beauty in the Space Between Child and Teacher: A Moʻokūʻauhau of a Kanaka ʻŌiwi Early Childhood Educator (An ʻŌiwi Moʻolelo Research Study)
A Journey of Transformation: The Role of an Inquiry Stance in Changing Teacher Beliefs and Practices

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.

Modifications to the EdD Program for Cohort IV (e.g., curriculum, faculty assignments, program governance, etc.). were based largely on the assessment results of Cohort III.

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 is improved based on assessments of the previous cohort and the current cohort in progress.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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):

6) Did your program engage in any program learning assessment activities between November 1, 2018 and October 31, 2020?

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.)

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

9) What types of evidence did the program use as part of the assessment activities checked in question 7? (Check all that apply.)

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

11) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? (Check all that apply.)

12) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? (Check all that apply.)

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.

14) What best describes how the program used the results? (Check all that apply.)

15) Please briefly describe how the program used its findings/results.

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.

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