Program: Educational Psychology (PhD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Thu Oct 20, 2011 - 12:23:54 pm
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.
- 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: Other: Other: 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.
0% 1-50% 51-80% 81-99%
100%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' dissertation proposals and final dissertations 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.
Four candidates were assessed. Not all assessments were made for each candidate in the reporting period.
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) Dean/Director Other: 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) Other: 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) and
2. Had the inquiry skills to conduct scholarly research effectively (SLO 2).
The dissertation proposal of one candidate was assessed. The candidate was rated as exemplary on all components of her literature review and on one component (description of participants) of her method section. The other three components of the method section (research design, procedures, and data analysis) were rated as satisfactory.
Three candidates completed their dissertations during the reporting period. Two candidates were rated as exemplary on all components of the final literature review. One candidate received a satisfactory rating for writing style and conventions and incorporating feedback from his advisor and Committee. Two candidates received exemplary ratings on all components of their dissertation method sections. One candidate received a satisfactory rating for data analysis, but received exemplary for all other components.
3. Could present scholarly research effectively (SLO 3).
The final presentation of three candidates was assessed. Two candidates received ratings of exemplary for all components of their research presentations. One candidate received exemplary ratings for all components, except for staying within time limitations. He received a satisfactory rating for time limitations.
4. Modeled the ethical treatment of research participants (SLO 4).
No candidates were assessed for their human subjects review.
11) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.
The faculty felt that the assessment results indicate that students are achieving the desired objectives. No changes to the program were recommended.
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.
The faculty felt that because so few doctoral students graduate each semester, it would be helpful to look at three years of data. We will do so at a future meeting to see if other conclusions can be drawn.