Unit: Educational Psychology
Program: Educational Psychology (MEd)
Degree: Master's
Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 - 6:15:04 am

1) Below are your program student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update 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) Your program's SLOs are 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:
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.

Curriculum Map File(s) from 2011:

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.

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 scholary 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 to answer the assessment question and/or meet the assessment goals that were given in Question #5.

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 on whether students' research had been approved by the UH Committee on Human Studies.

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

There were thirteen candidates for whom evidence was evaluated. These were all candidates who completed proposals and/or final master's papers (Plan B or thesis).

8) 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)

9) 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)

10) For the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goal(s) stated in Question #5:
Summarize the actual results.

We wanted to know whether candidates

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

Thirteen students completed their master’s Plan B or thesis proposals. Most of the ratings of the four components of their literature review were satisfactory, as opposed to exemplary. The weakest component of the literature review was students’ contexualization of the research question within the literature. Only one student was assessed as exemplary for this component.

Most of the ratings for the components of the proposal method section were rated as satisfactory. Of the four components, the weakest components were procedures and data analysis. Only two students were assessed as exemplary for procedures and no student was rated as exemplary for data analysis.

We found that for the most part, students were able to exceed expectations in all components of the literature review of their final paper (Plan B or thesis). Regarding students' statement of the research question, contextualization of the question within the literature, organization, and writing style 11 of the 13 students were assessed as exemplary. Regarding candidates incorporating their advisors’ or Committee’s suggestions, 12 of the 13 students were rated as exemplary.

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

Assessment of the method sections of the canidates' final papers indicated that the weakest component was regarding data analysis. Sixty seven percent (7 of the 12 students) was rated as satisfactory and 33% (6 students) was rated as exemplary. For all other components (research design, description of participants, procedures, and incorporation of feedback), 83-100% of candidates were assessed as exemplary.

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

Thirteen candidates were assessed for their final presentations. All students were rate as exemplary for the summary of the research and clarity and organization. Seventy seven percent (10 of the 13) was rated as exemplary for attention to audience, while 23% (3 of 13) was rated as satisfactory. Ninety two percent (12 of the 13 candidates) was rated as exemplary for visual aids and keeping within time limits. The other one person (same person for both components) was rated as satisfactory for those components.

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

Twelve candidates were assessed. Eleven received human subjects approval. The assessment did not apply to one student.

11) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.

1. The faculty felt that the 1-2 page Plan B proposal did not allow candidates to demonstrate their knowledge and thus resulted in lower assessments. They decided to require a longer proposal (approximately 10 pages), which would allow candidates to demonstrate knowledge and promote faculty providing additional assistance, as necessary.

2. The faculty felt that because so many students need better preparation to be able to conduct and analyze survey data. EDEP 416 will now include information relevant to these processes.

3. Although many MEd students completed qualitative studies for their research, they did not usually take a qualitative research course and this was reflected in their scores for data analysis. To better prepare these students, those who will complete a qualitative study will be required to take a qualitative methods course.

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.


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.