Program: Special Education (MEd)
Degree: Master's
Date: Mon Nov 09, 2020 - 11:27:24 am
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=tlcHome3) Please review, add, replace, or delete the existing curriculum map.
- 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.
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 SLOs6) 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.
The department continuously reviews candidate data during committee, program, and faculty meetings each semester. 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 during the November 1, 2018 and October 31, 2020 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 on the program overall. Faculty also discussed the University of Hawaii Advanced Program ILOs and the products for each ILO and aligned each ILO with a SLO (CEC Advanced Standards). Spring 2020 there was additional discussion regarding the ILOs and the need to more clearly align them with the SLOs and products candidates completed in the core courses of the SPED M.Ed. program. Further discussion of ILO, SLO, and product alignment is planned for Fall 2020 and Spring 2021.
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/Project Other 2: Issues Project/Paper10) State the number of students (or persons) who submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
In Fall 2018 there were 82 candidates who completed assessment products (SPED 602 n=55; SPED 641B n=13; SPED 688 n=11; SPED 500/695/699 n=3).
Spring 2019 there were 59 candidates who completed assessment products (SPED 642 n=40; SPED 500/695/699 n=19).
Summer 2019 there were 69 candidates who completed assessment products (SPED 641B n=41; SPED 688 n=20; SPED 695 n=8).
Candidates (n=210) enrolled in core M.Ed. courses in Fall 2018, Spring 2019, and Summer 2019 with required assessment products were assessed. All M.Ed. candidates enrolled in courses with required assessment products were included in this sample.
In Fall 2019 there were 84 candidates who completed assessment products (SPED 602 n=36; SPED 641B n=13; SPED 688 n=6; SPED 500/695/699 n=29).
Spring 2020 there were 56 candidates who completed assessment products (SPED 602 n= 4; SPED 642 n=34, SPED 500/695/699 n=18).
Summer 2020 there were 10 candidates who completed assessment products (SPED 641B n=8, SPED 500/695/699 n=2).
Candidates (n=150) enrolled in core courses in Fall 2019, Spring 2020, and Summer 2020 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 from the evaluation, analysis, interpretation of evidence (checked in question 12). For example, report the percentage of students who achieved each SLO.
Fall 2018 – Summer 2019
Assessment 1. Applied Issues Project in SPED 602 (Fall 2018). Of the 52 candidates who completed the Applied Issues Project in SPED 602, 81% of the candidates scored Target, 17% scored Acceptable, and 2% 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 2018; Summer 2019). Of the 31 candidates who completed the Issues in Special Education paper in SPED 641B, 45% of the candidates scored Target, 36% scored Acceptable, and 19% 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 2019). Of the 39 candidates who completed the exam in SPED 642, 39% of the candidates scored Target, 33% scored Acceptable, and 28% scored Unacceptable for SLO: CEC Advanced Standard 1: Assessment and ILO 2: Knowledge and Understanding. Of the 39 candidates who completed the exam in SPED 642, 36% of the candidates scored Target, 46% scored Acceptable, and 18% scored Unacceptable for SLO: CEC Advanced Standard 4: Research and Inquiry and ILO 2: Knowledge and Understanding.
Assessment 4. CITI Modules in SPED 688 (Fall 2018). Of the 11 candidates who completed the CITI Modules in SPED 688, all 11 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 2018; Spring 2019; Summer 2019). Of the 30 candidates who completed the Plan B paper in SPED 695, or SPED 699 in 83% of the candidates scored Target, 17 % 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. Of the 30 candidates who completed the Plan B paper 77% of the candidates scored Target, 23% scored Acceptable, and no candidate scored Unacceptable for SLO: CEC Advanced Standard 7: Collaboration and ILO 6: Professional Responsibility.
Fall 2019 – Summer 2020
Assessment 1. Applied Issues Project in SPED 602 (Fall 2019; Spring 2020). Of the 40 candidates who completed the Applied Issues Project in SPED 602, 83% of the candidates scored Target, 15% scored Acceptable, and 2% 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 2019; Summer 2020). Of the 21 candidates who completed the Issues in Special Education Paper in SPED 641b, 67% 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 2020). Of the 34 candidates who completed the exam in SPED 642, 41% of the candidates scored Target, 18% scored Acceptable, and 35% scored Unacceptable for SLO: CEC Advanced Standard 1: Assessment and 29% of the candidates scored Target, 21% scored Acceptable, and 50% scored Unacceptable for SLO: CEC Advanced Standard 4: Research and Inquiry and ILO 2: Knowledge and Understanding.
Assessment 4. CITI Modules in SPED 688 (Fall 2019). Of the 6 candidates who completed the CITI Modules in SPED 688, 83% of the candidates scored Target, no candidate scored Acceptable, and 17% 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 2020; Spring 2020; Summer 2020). Of the 49 candidates who completed the Plan B paper in SPED 695 or SPED 699, 80% of the candidates scored Target, 20% scored Acceptable, and no candidate scored Unacceptable for SLO: CEC Advanced Standard 4: Research and Inquiry and ILO 3: Intellectual and Applied Skills, and 82% of the candidates scored Target, 18% scored Acceptable, and no candidate scored Unacceptable for SLO: 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: Discussion of SPED 642 product – exam questions; further discussion is pending results of 2021 candidate data. Development of a shared google drive folder with resources to support scaffolding candidatesʻ completion of their Plan B papers. Discuss ILO #4 Critically analyze, synthesize, and utilize information and data related to one’s field of study and where it fits within the core courses in Spring 2021.15) Please briefly describe how the program used its findings/results.
Results of the five assessments indicate mastery of the CEC Advanced standards and the UH Advanced Degrees ILOs, with the majority of candidates receiving a rating of Target or Acceptable on all assessments except for one course (SPED 642) where in Spring 2020, 50% of candidates received Unacceptable as a result of not performing well on the research questions included on the exam. However, the majority (65%) passed other areas of the exam with a rating of Target or Acceptable and when SPED 642 was taught previously (Spring 2019) the majority of canddiates received ratings of Target of Acceptable (72% for CEC Advanced Standard 1; 82% CEC Advanced Standard 4 and ILO 2). Overall, the 2018-2020 results indicate strong candidate mastery of the SLOs, CEC Advanced standards, and the UH Advanced Degrees ILOs.
The department continuously reviews candidate data during committee, program, and faculty meetings each semester. Faculty reviewed data and feedback from candidates, course instructors, and program faculty to determine changes to the program, courses, or products. A few changes were discussed by the M.Ed. committee and faculty especially in regards to the results of the Exam in SPED 642 in Spring 2020. M.Ed. faculty who have taught the course discussed analyzing the exam questions noting questions candidates answered inaccurately and meeting to discuss the questions. They also discussed waiting to analyze the questions because the COVID-19 pandemic may impacted candidate performance. Fall 2020 the M.Ed. committee plans on dicussing the exam again.
Spring 2020 there was discussion at a faculty meeting that some CEC Standards and ILOs did not seem to be clearly aligned to the specific product or course used for candidates to demonstrate competency. The M.Ed. committee met late Spring 2020 and discussed reviewing each of the CEC Advanced Standards and UH Advanced ILOs to align them more closely and to ensure each standard/objective is adequately addressed in a product of one of the M.Ed. Core Courses (SPED 602, SPED 641B, SPED 642, SPED 688, SPED 695/699). The M.Ed. committee has scheduled a meeting Fall 2020 to share M.Ed. product data and to begin those discussions. Once the M.Ed. committee has completed their discussion it will be presented to the Tenure-Track faculty for discussion and then to the full faculty.
In the previous Manoa Assessment Report (2015-2018) it was reported that faculty were engaged in discussions to determine whether another course should be added or a current course should be revised to provide more scaffolding to candidates as they develop their Plan A/B paper. The M.Ed. faculty met Spring 2019 and discussed options that would not require candidates to take an additional course. Some faculty decided to use Laulima and virtual meetings to scaffold candidates in the development and completion of their Plan A/B papers. A shared google drive folder was developed for faculty to share ideas which seems to be helpful. M.Ed. faculty are continuing their discussions Fall 2020.
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. After reflecting on the products, SLOs, ILOs, and data faculty discussed the need to address ILO 4, Critically analyze, synthesize, and utilize information and data related to one’s field of study. Spring 2021 M.Ed. faculty plan to continue this discussion regarding ILO 4.
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 several candidates' Plan B papers in a peer-reviewed journal.