Unit: Educational Psychology
Program: Educational Psychology (MEd)
Degree: Master's
Date: Thu Nov 19, 2020 - 6:52:19 am

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

2. 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.)

3. 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.)

4. 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.)

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

Department Website URL:
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: https://drive.google.com/file/d/12CSIsLV36t11C7ijydGrd9lbDc_J4Qo1/view
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online:
Other:

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

Curriculum Map File(s) from 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 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.

Evaluation of student work and performances to determine SLO achievement

1. (Knowledge) Faculty members rated the literature reviews of candidates' theses and Plan B proposals and final papers to determine the extent to which they demonstrated expected bodies of knowledge.

2. (Knowledge). We analyzed students' grades on an assignment in EDEP 661: Development and Learning that required them to apply their knowledge of learning theories to plan, teach, and reflect on a lesson they taught to a person or group of people.

3. (Skills) Faculty members rated the methods section of candidates' theses and Plan B proposal and final papers to determine the extent to which they demonstrated expected skills to conduct scholarly research.

4. (Skills) Faculty members rated candidates' theses and Plan B final presentations to determine the extent to which they demonstrated skills to present scholarly research effectively.

5. (Dispositions). Faculty members documented whether their advisees successfully completed the on-line CITI modules on the ethical treatment of human participants in research.

Student self-reports of SLO achievement via surveys, interviews, or focus groups

6. Completion Survey. In their 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.

Employer Feedback

7. We solicited feedback via email from employers regarding how helpful our program has been preparing graduates to work in the field.

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: Completion of CITI human subjects ethics modules
Other 2:

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

1. The faculty evaluated the literature review and method section of 8 students’ theses and Plan B proposals. 

2. The faculty evaluated the final presentations and literature review and method section of 9 students’ theses and Plan B papers. 

3. Nine students successfully completed their CITI training. All students who were completing their final papers were sampled.

4. Eleven MEd students were evaluated for their Teaching Project Papers.

5. Four students completed the Completion Survey in 2019. 

6. Three employers provide feedback via email regarding how our program has prepared graduates to work in the field.

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: The College's Director of Assessment compiled the completer and alumni survey data.

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.

Assessment of SLO 1:Educational Psychology graduate students are knowledgeable about learning

and development, inquiry methods, and student assessment.

Faculty Assessments

fall 2018-summer 2020

     

EDEP Proposal Literature Review (n=8)

Exemplary

Satisfactory

Unacceptable

Statement of research question

50%

50%

0%

Context

50%

50%

0%

Organization

50%

50%

0%

Style and writing conventions

50%

42%

8%

       

EDEP Final Literature Review (n=9)

Exemplary

Satisfactory

Unacceptable

Statement of research question

89%

11%

0%

Context

56%

44%

0%

Organization

56%

44%

0%

Style and writing conventions

78%

22%

0

Revision

78%

22%

0

Teaching Paper Project Grades

Semester

n

Mean grade (100 possible)

Spring 2019

3

95.667

Spring 2020

8

95.125

Student Assessments on Completion Survey

2018-2019 (n=4)

Mean

Become more knowledgeable  in my field

1.00

Grow as an educational professional

1.25

Develop my knowledge of research methodology

1.25

Target areas of development for my professional growth.

1.75

Scoring Scale 

 1.00 = "Strongly agree" 

 2.00 = "Agree" 

 3.00 = "Neither agree nor disagree" 

 4.00 = "Disagree" 

 5.00 = "Strongly disagree"

 

Employer Feedback: The employers noted that Educational Psychology graduates generally have the requisite knowledge that prepares them for work in education.

Assessment of SLO 2: Educational Psychology graduate students have inquiry skills to conduct scholarly research effectively.

Faculty Assessments

Fall 2018-Summer 2020

     

EDEP Proposal Method Section (n=8)

Exemplary

Satisfactory

Unacceptable

Research design

50%

50%

0%

Participants

37%

63%

0%

Procedures

37%

63%

0%

Data analysis

37%

63%

0%

       

EDEP Final Method Section (n=9)

Exemplary

Satisfactory

Unacceptable

Research design

89%

11%

0%

Participants

67%

33%

0%

Procedures

56%

44%

0%

Data analysis

67%

43%

0%

Revision

89%

11%

0%

Students' Assessments on Completion Survey

2018-2019 (n=6)

Mean

Develop important new skills in my field.

1.50

Develop my ability to apply research skills.

1.50

Employer Feedback: One of the employers surveyed noted that although graduates were knowledable, they have more difficulty applying their skills in the field.

Assessment of SLO 3: Educational Psychology graduate students have inquiry skills to conduct scholarly research effectively.

Faculty Assessments

fall 2018-summer 2020 n=9

     

EDEP Research Presentation

Exemplary

Satisfactory

Unacceptable

Attention to the audience's perspective

78%

22%

0%

Clarity and organization

100%

0%

0%

Summary of the research

100%

0%

0%

Time limitations

78%

22%

0%

Visual aids

89%

11%

0%

Student Assessments on Completion Survey

2018-2019 (n=6)

Mean

Develop my presentation skills.

1.75

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

Faculty Assessment: 100% of students completed the CITI training.

Student Assessment on Completion Survey

2018-2019 (n=6)

Mean

Develop my presentation skills.

1.75


 

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.

In order to increase the accuracy of the faculty ratings of the literature reviews, method sections, and final presentations, the faculty decided to report mean scores with decimals, rather than rounding to the nearest whole number.

The faculty noted that faculty tended to rate students' lower for their proposal literature reviews and methods sections. They also recognized that students whose first language is other than English tend to be rated lower on style and writing conventions. Such results are understandable; however, the faculty decided to emphasize proposal writing and professional writing skills in coursework more than they have in the past. The faculty also decided to encourage second language speakers to use editing assistance from the Manoa Writing Center. The faculty agreed to adapt our editing agreement form to also be used with master's students. in the past, the editing agreement form has been used for doctoral students' comprehensive exams and dissertations.

Finally, to address one of the employer's concerns that our graduates did not have as much experience applying their knowledge to real-world applications, we plan to emphasize students' opportunities to enroll in EDEP 711: Practicum in Educational Psychology.

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 decided to develop a criteria of the proposal and final literature review rubrics related to the students' choice of theoretical or conceptual framework. They felt that this is often not as strong as other aspects of candidates' literature reviews.

In general, we are pleased with the assessment results.

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

Not applicable.