Degree Program Assessment Reports

MEd Early Childhood Education Program SLOs

The MEd in ECE program includes a unique set of program assessments designed to measure the candidates’ competency in meeting Five Core Program Standards. These assessments are based on the unit’s Conceptual Framework. They include measures of each candidate’s knowledge about child development and the field of early childhood education, ability to contribute to leadership in the profession as an effective early childhood educator, and disposition as a caring and ethical professional. These three foci are conceptual framework of the College of Education.

The conceptual framework of the COE provides broad direction and focus for the program design: the MEd in ECE provides a narrower lens through which to interpret and manifest the conceptual framework. The two are directly linked through the mission, the program goals and the objectives of the MEd in ECE. These, in turn are linked to Program Standards and Key Assessments.

The mission of the MEd in ECE is to develop depth of knowledge, collaboration skills, and the disposition to engage in leadership activities and advocacy in the field of education. Students develop the capacity to work collaboratively to design and implement high quality, inclusive programs for young children and their families.

The goal of the MEd in ECE program is to provide candidates with a conceptual framework, skills, and knowledge that will make them more effective in their roles as early childhood educators. It is designed to develop master's level competence relating to five Core Program Standards and two additional candidate selected Program Standards. Student learning outcomes are embedded in each of the required courses and the Plan B project - a Standards-Based Portfolio.

The Five Core Program Standards embedded in the required courses. SLOs are articulated below by standard:

Standard ONE: Child Development

MEd ECE graduates are knowledgeable about the developmental needs of young children from the prenatal period to eight years of age. As professionals who care about children achieving their maximum potential, they use that knowledge to effectively create programs that support children’s optimal development and to effectively develop translational strategies for families in an ethical and culturally sensitive manner.

SLOS for Standard 1

1.1  Students can explain research based knowledge of: 1) the unique individual nature of early childhood development and the role of maturation, protection, and experience in the development of domains, 2) the interactions between maturation and experience, 3) inter-relationships among the domains and contexts of development

1.2  Students can apply knowledge of child development by contributing to improvement of the quality of programs so that they better support each child's growth and learning.

Standard TWO: The Field of Early Childhood Education and Care

MEd ECE candidates are knowledgeable about current issues and trends in early childhood care and education. As professionals who care about the larger needs of the community, they use that knowledge to effectively provide ethical and culturally sensitive leadership and advocacy with regard to policy decision-making, government agencies, and their own programs.

SLOS for Standard 2

2.1  Students can access professional literature on current issues or trends in ECEC, analyze the quality of information, and communicate key information to others.

2.2  Students can analyze present policy, practices and programs and actively promote policies that improve the quality of programs for children by meaningfully participating in advocacy or leadership activities that reflect research based knowledge of effective ECEC programs and practices.

Standard THREE: Early Childhood Special Education

MEd ECE candidates are knowledgeable about children and families with special needs. As professionals who care about equity for all children and families, they effectively use their knowledge to develop inclusive educational programs to meet individual and group needs in an ethical, caring, and culturally inclusive manner.

SLOS for Standard

3.1  Students can review the literature on: 1) evolving trends in special education, 2) recommended practices regarding the needs of families with infants and young children with disabilities, 3) characteristics of infants and young children with disabilities, 4) legislative mandates for young children with special needs, 5) culturally inclusive assessment processes and procedures, 6) effective implementation of trends in the design and implementation of intervention and instruction in inclusive settings.

3.2  Students can describe legislation that affects young children with special needs/disabilities and the services and programs in Hawai'i that result from federal legislation.

3.3  Students can develop and implement an appropriate module for a 3 hour workshop that focuses on one or more topics related to inclusion of children with special needs OR a curriculum modification for children with special needs in their care based on their knowledge of young children with special needs and research based practices that support their development and learning.

Standard FOUR: Professionalism

MEd ECE candidates are knowledgeable about what it means to be a professional in the field of early childhood education. As professionals who care about the field, they work effectively in collaboration with families and other professionals to provide services in an ethical, caring and culturally sensitive manner. Candidates identify and conduct themselves as members of the early childhood profession. They know and use ethical guidelines and other professional standards related to early childhood practice.

SLOS for Standard 4

4.1  Students can describe the ethical and professional responsibilities of early childhood educators and the role of the NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct and other ethical codes in guiding professional practice.

4.2  Students can effectively analyze an ethical dilemma and engage in a methodical process to resolve it using the NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct to guide decision making.

4.3  Students can reflect on and demonstrate professional dispositions in their interactions with children, families, colleagues, and the general public and intentional growth in the breadth and scope of leadership within the professional community through their involvement in professional activities within and outside of the workplace.

Standard FIVE: Research

MEd ECE graduates are knowledgeable about the role of research in the field of early childhood education. As professionals who care about using research-based strategies and methods, they effectively reflect on their current practice and initiate their own action-research projects. They critically analyze, and apply current educational research to their own settings.

SLOS for Standard 5

5.1    Students can state: 1)  the characteristics of qualitative research design and paradigms, 2) strategies and techniques for qualitative inquiry, 3) ethical and social implications of various desicions, research strategies and report by qualitative and other researchers, and 4) the strengths and weaknesses of experimental and qualitative research approaches.

5.2 Students can critically review and synthesize research and evaluation literature.

5.3  Students can design, implement, and report on an original qualitative action research that is consistent with the evaluation protocols suitable for inquiry in his/her area of specialization and practice

The following evidence was gathered to answer the assessments questions that were given in Question #6.

• Previous NCATE MEd ECE Program Report (2009) and draft of current NCATE MEd ECE Program Report (2013)
• Information for NCATE Program Report writers.
• Syllabi for required courses between Summer 2009 and Fall 2012. (Missing 1 course – EDCS 667B)
•  Manoa Assessment Office reports between 2009 and 2011 and assessment office resources on preparing program reports.
• MEd ECE Program literature (website information, catalog information, program brochures, Plan B Portfolio Information, MEd ECE Program Standards, existing assessment instructions and assignments for core courses).
• Existing course evaluations and pre-assessment / post-assessment surveys of students in Cohorts III and IV. These exist as raw data, but have not yet been compiled and analyzed.
• Existing course evaluations that are on file. (This was available for some of the core courses).

•  SIS (Student Information System) data compiled on student performance for key NCATE assessments.

1.   What are the SLOs for the MEd ECE Program and how do they compare to Mānoa Assessment Office information on developing program SLOs?

Previous versions of Manoa Assessment Report stated standards and SLOs that were difficult to assess as they were written in general language and seemed to be articulated as broad goals or standards for the program.

2.    What existing program literature and assessment data is available and how are SLOs communicated in program literature (e.g. program brochures, website, statement of program standards, NCATE report, syllabi, etc.)

Review of program literature and data finds that SLOs are stated in some information that is provided to students about the overall program, goals, and outcomes. While there are clear assessments embedded in core classes and students are informed about the sequence of content and how it is delivered across coursework, objectives and goals for individual courses and assignment requirements, there isn’t a clear and cohesive pattern in stating of SLOs within the framework of the overall program.

Syllabi for individual classes articulate assessment assignments and requirements in alignment with NCATE key assessment information, however, these was stated as SLOs in only some course syllabi. Rubrics / SIS data records which standards met or did not meet assessment criteria.\\

3.    How do NCATE accreditation requirements align with Mānoa Assessment Office assessment requirements?

NCATE assessment requirements are newly revised and study of this is still being undertaken by new program administrator along with review of Mānoa Assessment Office assessment requirements.

It seems there is overlap in assessment requirements, however, differences in how to format and organize data. For instance, Manoa Assessment Office asks for data to be reported by SLO and mapping of courses. NCATE reports orient data collection around standards/key elements and data collection on 5-8 key program assessments. While inconsistent, they are nevertheless complimentary.

Manoa assessment requirements focus on student competencies in light of SLOs and clear communication of this information in program literature, NCATE accreditation is concerned with data informing overall program design however, does not necessarily inquire about how this is communicated in varied forms of program literature.

4.    How can the program more clearly articulate the connections between program goals/SLOs, content and assignments, and assessment methods across faculty and program administration and convey this information to students?

Inconsistencies in program literature and student feedback on student surveys reveal a need for clearly articulated information across website, program brochures, course syllabi and other sources of information. At present, faculty teaching courses designs syllabi in light of individual key assessments (as defined by NCATE Program Reports) embedded in courses.

The transition of program administrators and faculty and during the past 3 years presents an opportunity to relook at the current program and to revise program literature, assessments and organizational structure so that new faculty and administrators can move the program forward as a cohesive team in light of accountability demands. We are in the process of hiring a new faculty and will be able to assess and chart future directions when this person comes aboard.

5.    What revisions to current assessments are needed and are there any new assessments that need to be created?

Review of program assessments is still underway. New program administrator was just hired in August. Recommendations will be forthcoming as the NCATE report is drafted for submittal in Spring 2013. Faculty involved in teaching courses and newly hired program administrators will be included in this dialogue. It appears that key NCATE assessments embedded in courses are effective. Continuity of experience and supports for capstone Plan B Portfolio assessment needs strengthening.