Unit: Institute for Teacher Education
Program: Secondary Education (BEd)
Degree: Bachelor's
Date: Tue Nov 17, 2020 - 11:38:54 am

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

1. 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.

(1a. General education, 1c. Understand Hawaiian culture and history, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture)

2. Standard #2: Learning 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.

(1c. Understand Hawaiian culture and history, 2c. Communicate and report, 3b. Respect for people and cultures, in particular Hawaiian culture)

3. 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.

(2c. Communicate and report, 3c. Stewardship of the natural environment)

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

(1a. General education, 2b. Conduct research)

5. 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.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research)

6. 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.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2b. Conduct research)

7. 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.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field, 2a. Think critically and creatively, 2b. Conduct research)

8. 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.

(1b. Specialized study in an academic field)

9. 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.

(3a. Continuous learning and personal growth, 3d. Civic participation)

10. 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.

(2c. Communicate and report, 3a. Continuous learning and personal growth, 3d. Civic participation)

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

Department Website URL: https://coe.hawaii.edu/academics/institute-teacher-education/bed-secondary-education
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: https://programs.coe.hawaii.edu/secondary/lessons/about-the-program/#4-standards-amp-objectives
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: https://coe.hawaii.edu/secondary/programs/bed/
UHM Catalog. Page Number: 209-210
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.

The COE licensure programs engaged in a collaborative effort to develop shared key assessments to assess student learning across all licensure programs. Since November 2018, Secondary faculty participated in multiple inter-rater activities to complete validity and reliability discussions and exercises with the four COE shared assessments below. 


1. Assessment A – Planning Instruction: Candidates must demonstrate their ability to plan instruction for P12 learners. Evidence for this assessment is a minimum of three lesson plans, which are scored on Domain 1 (Planning and Preparation) of the Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching (CDF). The assessment is completed prior to the student teaching semester.

Program faculty meet regularly, either as a whole or in teams, to review the outcomes of Assessment A. Collaborative work related to continuous improvement includes the following activities: 

  1. Formal scoring reliability activities and discussions of validity for common assessments;

  2. Discussion of the AAQEP standards, state teacher performance standards, discipline-specific standards, and Danielson framework components to deepen our shared understanding of these requirements and examine how we are meeting the standards;

  3. Review and refinement of Assessment A’s implementation processes, pedagogical supports, and training/support for new faculty regarding the Assessment A;

  4. Review and refinement of program curriculum maps and core syllabi;

  5. Discussion of informal and formal feedback from community partners and alumni; and

  6. Discussion of the mission and vision across and within program tracks to nurture a shared vision related to Assessment A. 

2. Assessment B - Student Teaching Evaluation: Candidates demonstrate their competence as a teacher candidate in the four domains of the Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching (CDF): (1) Planning and Preparation, (2) the Classroom Environment, (3) Instruction, and (4) Professional Responsibilities. This assessment is completed during student teaching and is cumulative across the entire semester of work.

Program faculty meet regularly, either as a whole or in teams, to review the outcomes of Assessment B. Collaborative work related to continuous improvement includes the following activities: 

  1. Formal scoring reliability activities and discussions of validity for common assessments;

  2. Discussion of the AAQEP standards, state teacher performance standards, discipline-specific standards, and Danielson framework components to deepen our shared understanding of these requirements and examine how we are meeting the standards;

  3. Review and refinement of Assessment B’s implementation processes, pedagogical supports, and training/support for new faculty regarding the Assessment B;

  4. Review and refinement of program curriculum maps and core syllabi;

  5. Discussion of informal and formal feedback from community partners and alumni; and

  6. Discussion of the mission and vision across and within program tracks to nurture a shared vision related to Assessment B. 

3. Assessment C – Effect on P12 Learning: Candidates demonstrate their ability to plan, teach, and assess a unit of instruction/sequence of lessons. This assessment specifically addresses candidates’ ability to plan and teach a unit of instruction/sequence of lessons, analyze student learning through assessment data, and reflect on their teaching practice to improve their instruction. The assessment is scored on designated components and elements of the Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching (CDF). This assessment is completed during student teaching.

Program faculty meet regularly, either as a whole or in teams, to review the outcomes of Assessment C. Collaborative work related to continuous improvement includes the following activities: 

  1. Formal scoring reliability activities and discussions of validity for common assessments;

  2. Discussion of the AAQEP standards, state teacher performance standards, discipline-specific standards, and Danielson framework components to deepen our shared understanding of these requirements and examine how we are meeting the standards;

  3. Review and refinement of Assessment C’s implementation processes, pedagogical supports, and training/support for new faculty regarding the Assessment C;

  4. Review and refinement of program curriculum maps and core syllabi;

  5. Discussion of informal and formal feedback from community partners and alumni; and

  6. Discussion of the mission and vision across and within program tracks to nurture a shared vision related to Assessment C. 

4. Assessment D - Professional Dispositions:  Candidates must demonstrate professional dispositions, including professionalism, communication (verbal and nonverbal), collaboration, reflection, and diversity. This assessment is completed in all field and student teaching experiences.

Program faculty meet regularly, either as a whole or in teams, to review the outcomes of Assessment D. Collaborative work related to continuous improvement includes the following activities: 

  1. Formal scoring reliability activities and discussions of validity for common assessments;

  2. Discussion of the AAQEP standards, state teacher performance standards, discipline-specific standards, and Danielson framework components to deepen our shared understanding of these requirements and examine how we are meeting the standards;

  3. Review and refinement of Assessment D’s implementation processes, pedagogical supports, and training/support for new faculty regarding the Assessment D;

  4. Review and refinement of program curriculum maps and core syllabi;

  5. Discussion of informal and formal feedback from community partners and alumni; and

  6. Discussion of the mission and vision across and within program tracks to nurture a shared vision related to Assessment D. 

Collect/analyze student self-reports of SLO achievement via surveys:

Each semester, program completer surveys are distributed by the Dean’s Office to our candidates in their final semester of the program. This data is published in reports aggregated by program in the COE Intranet and is also reported on the COE public website, “Measuring Our Success.”

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.

 

2018-2019

17 students submitted Assessment A

18 students submitted Assessment B

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

17 students submitted Assessment D Professional Dispositions in Student Teaching   



2019 - 2020

21 students submitted Assessment A

18 students submitted Assessment B

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

 21 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 either Basic or Proficient

2019-2020

Assessment A: 99% met either Basic or Proficient; 1% no satisfactory

Assessment B: 100% met either Basic or Proficient

Assessment C: 100% met either Basic or Proficient

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.

During the June 2018 to October 2020 time frame our faculty worked collaboratively meeting on average two times a month to continually improve our redesigned program and curriculum. As part of our de-design process we used the assessment results to inform our decisions. We started with long discussions about the Rubric language so that assessments could be more consistent in our program.  Our final result included refining our Signature Assignments that are carefully scaffolded throughout the program so we can evidence when students are introduced to the SLOs, reinforced and expected to demonstrate mastery. For example, in the student survey some students pointed out that the many of our courses  can be taken in any sequence of their choice. This proved to not be sound for the student’s learning as they could not make strong connections between the courses before our new course sequence. We agreed and we now have a locked schedule sequence for when they take the courses so we can better roll out the curriculum and assessments so the content better builds off each other. All of our candidates move in cohorts. We also made two significant course changes to improve our program and to better align with the Standards.


  1. Our teacher candidates now take ITE 402N Teaching Practicum - Interdisciplinary in term/semester one of our program instead of ITE 403.  This enhanced our field hours and now candidates work in a Literacy Clinic with Multilingual learners.

  2. UHM course modification was submitted for ITE 401which was re-titled from “Engaging the Adolescent Learners” to “Principles & Methods of Literacies Within and Across the Disciplines (6-12)” and was approved in 2019 by all UHM institutional levels.  This new title truly reflects the essence of the ITE 401 course and better meets our Hawaii Teaching Standards Board (HTSB) expectations (i.e., working with limited English proficient students and who have reading difficulties) demonstrating that our program is better addressing the institutional learning outcomes. 

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 explained throughout this report caused many new discoveries for our faculty. Our initial discoveries included that some inconsistent practices and interpretations were being made around the COE Shared Assessments (A-D).  Due to this discovery we now have a better understanding of the assessments. We also continually refined our Signature Assignments making the explanations around the assessments clearer for faculty and students.  We submitted two course modifications (they were approved) which greatly improved our program so SLOs are more overtly being addressed.

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