Unit: Educational Psychology
Program: Educational Psychology (MEd)
Degree: Master's
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2010 - 9:35:34 am

1) Below are the program student learning outcomes submitted last year. Please add/delete/modify as needed.

  1. Educational Psychology graduate students are knowledgeable about learning and development, inquiry methods, and student assessment.
  2. Educational Psychology graduate students have inquiry skills to conduct scholarly research effectively.
  3. Educational Psychology graduate students present scholarly research effectively.
  4. Educational Psychology graduate students model the ethical treatment of research participants.

2) As of last year, your program's SLOs were published as follows. Please update as needed.

Department Website URL: http://www.coe.hawaii.edu/edep
Student Handbook. URL, if available online:
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: NA
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online:
Other:
Other:

3) Below is the link to your program's curriculum map (if submitted in 2009). If it has changed or if we do not have your program's curriculum map, please upload it as a PDF.

Curriculum Map File(s) from 2009:

4) The percentage of courses in 2009 that had course SLOs explicitly stated on the syllabus, a website, or other publicly available document is indicated below. Please update as needed.

0%
1-50%
51-80%
81-99%
100%

5) State the assessment question(s) and/or goals of the assessment activity. Include the SLOs that were targeted, if applicable.

The program faculty wanted to know whether candidates:

1. Were knowledgeable about learning and development, inquiry methods, and student assessment (SLO 1).

2. Had the inquiry skills to conduct scholarly research effectively (SLO 2).

3. Could present scholarly research effectively (SLO 3).

4. Modeled the ethical treatment of research participants (SLO 4).

6) State the type(s) of evidence gathered.

We collected candidates' proposals and final MEd papers (Plan B or thesis) and analyzed the literature reviews and method sections of those documents. We also collected documentation of whether students' research had been approved by the UH Committee on Human Studies.

7) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected?

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:

8) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence?

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:

9) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated.
If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.

Five candidates were assessed. Note that not all assessments were made for each candidate during the reporting period.

10) Summarize the actual results.

Proposals

Literature review. All of the candidates clearly stated research questions that were feasible and broad enough in scope for a master’s Plan B project or thesis. Three of the four candidates provided a literature review that adequately contextualized the research question within previous research. For all of the candidates, most of the writing was clear and organized, although there were some errors of APA style and other writing conventions. Compared to other aspects of the literature review, lower scores were assigned for the clarity and organization of the review.

Method section. For all of the candidates, the research design appeared to fit their research questions. The description and appropriateness of the participants were described and procedures were generally clear, but needed some additional details (for three of the four candidates). The proposed data analyses needed some clarification.

Human Subjects’ Review

All of the candidates received approval for their Plan B or thesis proposals.

Final Papers

Literature review. All candidates were successful on all aspects of the literature review, although clarity and organization continued to be related lower relative to other aspects of the review.

         Method section. All candidates were successful on all aspects of the method section of their final papers, but the description of how data analysis was rated lower than other aspects.

 Final Presentations

For the most part, all of the candidates were very successful in their final presentations.

11) How did your program use the results? --or-- Explain planned use of results.
Please be specific.

These results are consisted with the previous year’s data, indicating that students consistently had difficulty describing data analysis procedures in their proposals and final papers. The faculty decided to emphasize data analysis to a greater extent in our research methodology courses and to also advise students to take additional coursework in research methods, once they decided what type of data analysis they wanted to apply. In reviewing the data for the current assessment period, we recognize that the candidates who were assessed had taken the required research courses some time ago, so would not have benefited from changes made to the coursework or advisement.

 After discussing the assessment results, the faculty felt that we could assist students with strengthening the clarity and organization of their literature reviews in EDEP 611, a required course that has as one of its objectives the development of a literature review. The instructor of EDEP 611 will provide additional instruction in writing a clear and well-organized literature review.

12) Beyond the results, were there additional conclusions or discoveries? This can include insights about assessment procedures, teaching and learning, program aspects and so on.

Program faculty felt that using rubrics with scales of 0-2 make it difficult to measure variability and tp determine change across time. The faculty will discuss whether to expand the rubric across a wider range of scores to better detect change.

13) Other important information: