Program: Educational Foundations (MEd)
Date: Tue Sep 20, 2011 - 3:28:44 pm
1) Below are your program student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.
(Knowledge) Demonstrates analysis and critical thinking, and an understanding of concepts and/or theories and/or issues and/or complexities of the subject.
(Knowledge) Demonstrates a socio-cultural or historical or philosophical or comparative understanding of the subject.
(Knowledge) Demonstrates the ability to synthesize information coherently.
(Skills) Writing or Presentation is organized, clear, and engaging. If applicable, uses correct grammar, spelling, punctuation, and proper citation.
(Disposition) Keeps an open mind to multiple perspectives and interpretations.
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: NA
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online:
3) Below is the link(s) to your program's curriculum map(s). If we do not have your curriculum map, please upload it as a PDF.
- File (03/16/2020)
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.
5) For the period June 1, 2010 to September 30, 2011: State the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goals. Include the SLOs that were targeted, if applicable.
SLO #1: Students will demonstrate analysis and critical thinking, and an understanding of concepts and/or theories and/or issues and/or complexities of the subject.
How well are students achieving SLO #1? To what extent do students demonstrate a) analysis and critical thinking; and b) understanding of concepts, theories, issues, and/or complexities of the subject?
6) State the type(s) of evidence gathered to answer the assessment question and/or meet the assessment goals that were given in Question #5.
For courses that include this SLO, instructors fill out a rubric for each student in the class, rating the level at which the student meets this SLO: target; acceptable, and unacceptable. At the end of the semester, after all instructors have filled out the rubric, results are combined in a table without individual students’ names. The table provides the following information: total number of students; and the percentage of students at target, acceptable, and unacceptable levels. A sample of essays/power point presentations are submitted to the department office.
7) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
Each semester, three to four instructors fill out the rubrics and submit sample essays/power point presentations. Students (362) in 21 classes were assessed using the rubrics. Ten sample essays were reviewed.
8) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? (Check all that apply.)
Ad hoc faculty group
Persons or organization outside the university
Advisors (in student support services)
Students (graduate or undergraduate)
Other: EDEF Advisory Council
9) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? (Check all that apply.)
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)
10) For the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goal(s) stated in Question #5:
Summarize the actual results.
There was a range of 43-100 percent of students in each class who were rated as “target.”
There was a range of 13-57 percent of students in each class who were rated as “acceptable.”
There was a range of 4-5 percent of students in each class who were rated as “unacceptable.”
11) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.
The department’s advisory council, at its September 2011 meeting, used the results to discuss—among other things—the relationship of assessment results (target, acceptable, unacceptable) to course grades, the need for reliability in rating scores by different instructors, the need to look at growth of student understanding. The discussion led the group to consider ways to help students reach target level.
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.
Council members agreed that the SLOs, which were revised from last year’s SLOs, were better suited to program goals. All agreed that numerical data alone give an incomplete picture of student progress and achievement. Student essays and power point presentations add to the quality of assessments.
13) Other important information.
Please note: If the program did not engage in assessment, please explain. If the program created an assessment plan for next year, please give an overview.
In August 2011 the department formed an Advisory Council of six members, which met with department faculty to analyze the data. The council members included former students who completed their MEd and PhD with a specialization in the department; a former University of Hawaii Manoa administrator; a Hawaii State Department of Education administrator; a private school administrator. This Advisory Council was very helpful in analyzing student data.