Program: Learning Design and Technology (PhD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Sat Nov 14, 2020 - 10:46:18 pm
1) Program Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) and Institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs)
1. Students can demonstrate theoretical and conceptual knowledge in the broad issues of learning design and technology. (Knowledge and Understanding ILO 1.1)
(1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in one or more general subject areas related to, but not confined to, a specific area of interest.)
2. Students demonstrate knowledge of the various research approaches used in the learning design and technology field and are able to develop a research proposal using one or more of those methods. (Knowledge and Understanding ILO 1.2)
(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. Students can apply their knowledge of the field and critical thinking to a design project and can present possible solutions to problems relevant to learning design and technology. (Intellectual and Applied Skills, ILO 2.1)
(4. Critically analyze, synthesize, and utilize information and data related to one’s field of study.)
4. Students are able to integrate appropriate tools, concepts and principles in learning design and technology to collect, analyze and synthesize both qualitative and quantitative data related to the field. (Intellectual and Applied Skills, ILO 2.2)
(3. Apply research methodology and/or scholarly inquiry techniques specific to one’s field of study.)
5. Students are able to communicate information relevant to the field both orally and in written form using appropriate tools and in a manner consistent with accepted professional and institutional guidelines and procedures. (Communication Skills, ILO 3.1)
(2. Demonstrate understanding of research methodology and techniques specific to one’s field of study.)
6. Students are able to design and conduct research in the field in a manner that is responsible and ethical and respects the cultural perspectives of others. (Professional Responsibility, ILO 4.1)
(6. Conduct research or projects as a responsible and ethical professional, including consideration of and respect for other cultural perspectives.)
7. Students demonstrate the personal and professional characteristics expected of those working in the field of learning design and technology. (Professional Responsibility, ILO 4.2)
(5. Proficiently communicate and disseminate information in a manner relevant to the field and intended audience., 7. Interact professionally with others.)
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Department Website URL: https://coe.hawaii.edu/ltec/ Student Handbook. URL, if available online: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18H8pC8GY1i1LARaeaPu2uQB4KRAXka0JJuM7ZFWc7m4/edit Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: Part of orientation presentation for all new students
UHM Catalog. Page Number: Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: As appropriate for each course Other: 3) Please review, add, replace, or delete the existing curriculum map.
- File (11/15/2020)
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.
Many of these items were completed as a result of the current self-study
Create/modify/discuss program learning assessment procedures (e.g., SLOs, curriculum map, mechanism to collect student work, rubric, survey)
· The program faculty met to ensure revised SLOs and curriculum map were leading to appropriate outcomes
Collect/evaluate student work/performance to determine SLO achievement
· Data continued to be collected and entered into a google document in all but one of the core courses.
· Data were reorganized and consolidated from disparate locations.
· Faculty on dissertation committees were remined to complete a rubric for proposal and dissertation defenses and those are collected in the Department.
Use assessment results to make programmatic decisions (e.g., change course content or pedagogy, design new course, hiring)
· The faculty teaching the research course sequence met to ensure revised key assignments mapped to outcomes were appropriate
· New advanced research courses, previously just under development, were completed and delivered. These were in the area of Indigenous Research and Design-Based Research. A design-based research (DBR) option was added as a choice acceptable for dissertations
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.
First, please note that it is very difficult to disaggregate our data year by year even though this is a request for an update just from November 2018 to October 31 2020. This is because doctoral students are independent and complete requirements at different times. For example, one 2015 cohort student may have already completed all requirements while another has yet completed their comprehensive exam. Since students have a limit of 7 years for completion, all students would be considered still active since 2015 except for those who have graduated. Therefore, I have updated data from the previous submission.
All students must complete key assignments as well as comprehensive exam, proposal defense, and dissertation defense. All students are reviewed by the faculty annually for professional dispositions. As stated, the number of students submitting evidence varies by where they are in the program. For example, 63 student work samples were collected for one key assessment that occurs at the beginning of the program. However, only 8 dissertation review sheets were collected when students defended their final dissertations. As reported previously, missing data from some of the key courses reflect the retirement and resignation of two faculty who did not provide the data. Students are scored on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 not meeting expectations and 5 exceeding expectations. A score of 0 is given for an Incomplete or Drop and not scored. The LTEC program operates as a cohort program. The following cohorts are included in terms of this assessment report.
· 2015 cohort (included students moved from EDUC)=53; 2016 cohort=15; combined 2017-2018 cohort=12 and 2019 cohort= 10 students.
· 74 of 90 student conference proposal key assignments (LTEC 750C) were scored and recorded from 2015 to 2019 cohorts.
· 76 of 90 student qualitative analysis key assignments (LTEC 667) were scored and recorded from 2015 to 2019 cohorts.
· 63 of 68 student quantitative analysis key assignments (LTEC 668) were scored and recorded from 2015 and 2016 cohorts. Other cohorts have not completed this course.
· 74 of 90 student design project key assignments (LTEC 701) were scored and recorded from 2015 to 2019 cohorts.
· 59 of 81 student literature review key assignments (LTEC 750E) were scored and recorded from 2015 to 2018 cohorts. The 2019 cohort has not completed the course.
· 62 of 74 student CITI scores were recorded (LTEC 760) from 2015 to 2018 cohorts. Some from the 2017-2018 combined cohort are not yet enrolled in 760 and completing electives.
· 88 of 90 students received disposition scores for their first year in the program from the 2015 to 2019 cohorts and 83 have Year 2 scores from the same cohorts. The lower number is attributable to students either on leave or that have dropped the program.
· 33 of 68 students from the 2015 and 2016 cohorts had scores recorded for passing their comprehensive examinations.
· 26 of the 68 students in the 2015 to 2016 cohort have completed their proposals and have scores.
· 11 of the 2015 to 2016 cohort members completed their dissertations and have rubric scores recorded.
· All faculty submitted syllabi for review.
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.
Once again, these data are updated from previous to include the 2017 and 2018-2019 cohorts. Rubrics were developed for most of the key assessments using a 6 level rubric. In general 0 indicated the knowledge or skill we were seeking was absent either due to incomplete or drop and was not included in calculations, 1 (weak) 2 (needs some improvement) 3 (satisfactory) 4 (good) 5 (excellent).
Formative assessment data showed the following:
· Scores (N=59 on the literature review assessment (LTEC 750E - SLO 1) showed 90% meeting expectations (score of 3, 4, or 5) with 10% scoring 1 or 2.
· Scores (N=74) on the conference proposal and presentation (LTEC 750C - SLO 5) showed 100% meeting expectations (scores of 3, 4, 5) with 76% achieving a score of 5.
· Scores (N=62) on the ethics knowledge (CITI) assessment (LTEC 760 - SLO 6) showed 100% passing.
· On the design project (N=74) assessment (LTEC 701 - SLO 3) 100% had satisfactory scores (3, 4, 5) but only 3% achieved a score of 5.
· On the qualitative data analysis (N=76) assessment (LTEC 667 - SLO 4), 97% received satisfactory scores (3, 4, 5) with 42% satisfactory (3) and 21% excellent (5).
· On the quantitative data analysis (N=63) assessment (LTEC 668 - SLO 4), 95% received adequate scores (3,4,5) with over half receiving a score of 4 (57%).
Summative assessment data showed the following:
· Scores on the comprehensive examination (N=33) showed 100% scoring 3, 4, or 5 on the rubric. 24% scored satisfactory (3), 39% good (4), and 37% excellent (5).
· Those completing their proposals (N=26) showed that 46% were rated as excellent (5), 39% good (4) and 15% satisfactory (3).
· For the dissertation oral defense (n=11), 27% were rated as good (4) and 73% excellent (5).
In terms of professional dispositions;
Year 1 ratings showed 78% on target (3 - 25%, 4 - 22%, or 5 - 31%). 21% needed improvement (2) and 1 student scored as weak (1).
Year 2 ratings while still showing 78% on target (3,4,5), there was improvement with fewer scoring 3 and more scoring a 4 (34% scoring 5, 29% scoring 4, and 16% scoring 3) and no student scoring below 2, although 22% were at a level 2 - needs improvement.
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.
Findings indicated students were weaker than our target for synthesizing data. Early in the program, LTEC 750C (the first course in the sequence) included a literature review as a core assignment. It was determined through review that many students were not quite ready for doing the literature review as they were unsure of their topic, and more specifically the literature review for most students was weak on synthesis of literature. Thus, the program moved the literature review to LTEC 750E (the last course in the sequence prior to preparing their research proposals) and added a new synthesis assignment as a core assessment in 750C. In addition, proposal data indicated students were weak on conceptual frameworks. Thus, new assignments and instruction related to conceptual frameworks were incorporated into LTEC 750E as part of the literature review assignment. Final dissertation ratings (2019) indicated improvement in these areas after revisions. Review of assessments in LTEC 665 indicated weaknesses in articulating problem statements and aligning the problem, research questions, and research design in the prospectus core assignment. Based on these findings, LTEC 665 was redesigned to focus on alignment issues as well as expanding the number of possible research designs students learned about. Findings in LTEC 667 indicated weaknesses in analysis of qualitative data. As a result, more hands-on activities with students to analyze data were added, including experience with open-ended survey data, interview data, and observation data. While the core assessment in LTEC 760 (completing IRB training) was fine, other feedback sought from students indicated needs for more direct feedback from faculty and more access to exemplars. As a consequence, the cycle of direct feedback to students was moved to monthly for draft proposals and added resources for students, including examples of successful student comprehensive examinations and proposals, were incorporated into the course Learning Management System (LMS). Review of disposition data indicated some students needed attention although overall, students were doing well. Triggers were added to indicate when students needed to receive a letter regarding their dispositions and some letters have been sent. These letters may address such issues as conflicts in group projects, lack of addressing incomplete grades after multiple reminders, patterns of late or not submitting assignments or ignoring faculty feedback. Students are warned that failure to improve can result in removal from the program. Students have been advised out of the program in particular when there is a pattern of unresolved incomplete grades.
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.
Based on the overall findings, the sequence of courses was changed as noted below.
Initial sequence: Fall 1 - LTEC 750C, LTEC 665: Spring 1- LTEC 750E, LTEC 668: Summer 1 - LTEC 701: Fall 2- LTEC 667, and choice of elective or student selected advanced research course: Spring/Summer 2- electives or choice of advanced research course: Fall 3: LTEC 760.
Current sequence: Fall/Spring 1- LTEC 750C, LTEC 665, LTEC 667: Summer 1-LTEC 701: Fall/Spring 2 - LTEC 668, LTEC 780 or 781 (advanced research), LTEC 750E: Summer 2 - electives: Fall 3-LTEC 760.
In addiiton, results indicated LTEC has a robust program but with only initial data as the doctoral program is relatively. We still have much to learn both from data as well as our students. As with the masters program, students consistently refer to the importance and overwhelming feeling of ohana in our program.
17) If the program did not engage in assessment activities, please justify.
The program did engage in assessment.