Program: Educational Foundations (MEd)
Degree: Master's
Date: Thu Oct 04, 2012 - 4:22:34 pm
1) Below are your program's 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.
Department Website URL: 
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: NA Other: Other: 3) Select one option:
- 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) Did your program engage in any program assessment activities between June 1, 2011 and September 30, 2012? (e.g., establishing/revising outcomes, aligning the curriculum to outcomes, collecting evidence, interpreting evidence, using results, revising the assessment plan, creating surveys or tests, etc.)
Yes No (skip to question 14)6) For the period June 1, 2011 to September 30, 2012: State the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goals. Include the SLOs that were targeted, if applicable.
All of the SLOs listed in Q1 were assessed using the department's program assessments, for all candidates. Assessments and scoring guides were aligned with program SLOs. Please see my response to Q1
Assessment questions: How well (unacceptable, acceptable, target) are students achieving each SLO? Do what extent do students demonstrate analysis and critical thinking, understanding of concepts, ability to synthesize information coherently, clear and organized writing, and an open mind to multiple perspectives? Instructors fill out a rubric for each student in the class.
7) State the type(s) of evidence gathered to answer the assessment question and/or meet the assessment goals that were given in Question #6.
Assessment 1. Philosophy of Education Essay, for EDEF 660, Philosophy of Education; or EDEF 610, Foundations of Educational Theory
Write an essay exploring educational concepts and employing philosophical argumentation and analysis. This assignment requires you to demonstrate your ability to engage in philosophical reflection on an important educational issue.
Assessment 2. Essay on Historical Studies, for EDEF 651, History of Education in America; or EDEF 652, History of Education in Hawai‘i
Based on the assigned historical studies on education, write an essay that presents a theme or thesis that integrates the readings. Support your theme/thesis with evidence from the readings and from your experience. Use your analytical skills to produce a thoughtful essay.
Assessment 3. Presentation of a Case Study on Education in a Country/Readings of a Session, for EDEF 669, Introduction to Comparative/International Education; or EDEF 671, Topics in Comparative Education
Presentation on a Case Study on Education in a Country, for EDEF 669. Provide an overview of the education in a country, explain strengths and weaknesses, analyze critically one or two issues that are especially important to that country, and lead a discussion on the selected country’s education with 2-3 thought-provoking questions.
Presentation on Readings of a Session, for EDEF 671. Provide an overview of the readings, critique the readings (i.e., explain the strengths and weaknesses of the readings, and offer reflections), and lead a discussion on the topic of the session with 2-3 thought-provoking questions.
Assessment 4. Final Paper, for Plan A Thesis or Plan B Non-Thesis
Plan A and B describes two options available at Manoa as a capstone research project for master’s students. In the Department of Educational Foundations, these projects may include an action research project or a more traditional research paper involving historical, philosophical, socio-cultural, or comparative/international research.
Assessment 5. Culturally Relevant Teaching/Research Paper, for EDEF 630, Cultural Diversity and Education; or EDEF 683, Social and Cultural Contexts of Education
Culturally Relevant Teaching, for EDEF 630. Drawing on the class readings and other sources you find appropriate, write a paper (about 10 double-spaced pages) that explores diversity and addresses issues regarding culturally relevant curriculum and teaching. How do your perspectives on human diversity apply in your classroom and/or school? How have you incorporated cultural theories and applicable curricular and pedagogical approaches to your work setting? Produce a clearly written, well-organized paper, with appropriate spelling, punctuation, and grammar.
Research Paper, for EDEF 683. Research a school/society issue or a cultural issue at the national, international or local level. The paper should include data from at least three interviews as well as research that helps to set the social, historical, cultural and/or political context for your paper.
8) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
All 45 candidates submitted evidence that was evaluated. Students in each required course submitted course requirements and were assessed using a rubric for each assessment.
9) 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: Department Advisory Council10) 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: 11) For the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goal(s) stated in Question #6:
Summarize the actual results.
Assessment 1. Candidates were remarkably strong in Professional Dispositions, with 96.6 percent reaching Target level. They did very well in Analysis and Critical Thinking, with 90.2 percent reaching Target level. They also did well in Understanding of the Subject, with 88 percent reaching Target level, and in Synthesis of Information, with 89 percent reaching Target level. While writing is a challenge for most students, a good percentage, 85 percent, were able to meet Target level. Faculty were gratified that all students met either Acceptable or Target levels in writing, and the vast majority met Acceptable or Target levels in the other 4 standards. As for the few candidates who were rated as unacceptable in knowledge standards, faculty who taught these courses explained that those candidates did not turn in assignments and thus did not demonstrate an acceptable level in these standards. The faculty who rated one candidate as unacceptable in professional disposition did not see growth in this standard.
Assessment 2. Candidates were strongest in Analysis and Critical Thinking, with 91 percent reaching Target level. They did very well in Synthesis of Information, with 85 percent reaching Target level. They also did well in Understanding of the Subject and Writing Skills, with 83 percent reaching Target level in these two standards. Faculty were gratified that all students met either Acceptable or Target levels in three of the four standards assessed. One candidate was rated as unacceptable in Synthesis of Information; the faculty who taught the course explained that the candidate had great difficulty in this area and was unable to meet the standard. Faculty agreed that they would continue to support students in meeting at least Adequate levels in all standards.
Assessment 3. Faculty discussed the percentages at Target level, which were lower than the percentages for other courses. Faculty agreed that these two courses on Comparative/International Education can be especially challenging for many students because the subject moves beyond their normal understandings and require special analyses of educational issues internationally. Despite these difficulties, candidates reached either Acceptable or Target levels. Candidates were strongest in Professional Dispositions, with 84 percent reaching Target level. Faculty members were especially pleased that no student was rated as Unacceptable in the four standards assessed.
Assessment 4. Faculty members were very pleased that all candidates met either Acceptable or Target levels for this large capstone project. Faculty were also gratified that no candidate was rated as Unacceptable. Faculty advisors spent much time supporting and advising students, and were happy to see that their advisees succeeded in producing research-writing projects that met Acceptable and Target levels. Overall, the percentage range of candidates rated as Acceptable was slightly higher than the percentage range of candidates rated as Target, but only slightly. Although the percentage of candidates who reached Target level was lower than with other assessments, this was to be expected with an assignment that was more involved and more complex than assignments in department courses.
Assessment 5. Faculty members agreed that candidates did very well in Synthesis of Information, with 92 percent reaching Target level, and in Understanding of the Subject, with 90 percent reaching Target level. Faculty also agreed that candidates did well in Professional Dispositions, with 88 percent reaching Target, in Analysis and Critical Thinking, with 87 percent reaching Target, and in Writing Skills, with 84 reaching Target. As mentioned earlier, writing is a challenge for most students, and because of this, faculty were pleased with seeing that 84 percent of candidates were able to meet Target level. A very small percentage—1 and 2 percent—of candidates were rated as Unacceptable in the standards because, according to faculty who taught these courses, these candidates did not turn in assignments and thus did not demonstrate an Acceptable level in these standards. One candidate was rated as Unacceptable in professional dispositions because the candidate did not exhibit growth in this standard.
12) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.
Faculty used the results to discuss the results to discuss growth of student understanding. Faculty also discusssed ways to help students reach target level. Faculty saw the need to revise the assessment for EDEF 683, Social and Cultural Contexts of Education. After some discussion, faculty agreed that the existing assessment, which was an essay on a re-socialization experience, did not fit the standards as well as it should. As a result, instructors of the course presented a new assessment, a research paper on a school/society and/or cultural issue, which faculty agreed addresses better the department’s standards.
To improve student learning, faculty agreed on a basic format for course syllabi. Faculty shared their syllabi, which has helped them develop and improve their courses.
Faculty discussed the need to ensure that assessments are fair and free from bias. To this end, we discussed ways to write effective student learning outcomes (SLOs) for our course syllabi. These discussions led to faculty fine-tuning their SLOs.
13) Beyond the results, were there additional conclusions or discoveries?
This can include insights about assessment procedures, teaching and learning, program aspects and so on.
Department faculty members have spent time to help students learn the skills necessary in writing and making presentations. One student who responded to a College survey wrote that faculty in this department gave him/her much help in courses and in learning to write the culminating paper, stating, “I valued the availability of professors to talk with.”
14) If the program did not engage in assessment activities, please explain.
Or, if the program did engage in assessment activities, please add any other important information here.
This ends my report.