Program: Special Education (MEd)
Degree: Master's
Date: Wed Dec 12, 2012 - 10:59:00 am
1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.
Graduate Student Learning Outcomes: The SLOs are the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) standards for advanced roles in special education. The six standards include knowledge and skill indicators. The standards are:
1. Leadership and Policy. Special educators in advanced programs learn to use their deep understanding of the history of special education, current legal and ethical standards, and emerging issues to provide leadership. Special educators promote high professional self-expectations and help others understand the needs of individuals with exceptional learning needs. They advocate for educational policy based on solid evidence-based knowledge to support high quality education for individuals with exceptional learning needs. As appropriate to their role, they advocate for appropriate resources to ensure that all personnel involved have effective preparation. Special educators use their knowledge of the needs of different groups in a pluralistic society to promote evidence-based practices and challenging expectations for individuals with exceptional learning needs. They model respect for all individuals and ethical practice. They help to create positive and productive work environments and celebrate accomplishments with colleagues. They mentor others and promote high expectations for themselves, other professionals, and individuals with exceptional learning needs.
2. Program Development and Organization. Special educators apply their knowledge of cognitive science, learning theory, and instructional technologies to improve instructional programs. They advocate for a continuum of program options and services to ensure the appropriate instructional supports for individuals with exceptional learning needs. They help design and deliver, as appropriate to their role, ongoing results-oriented professional development designed to support the use of evidenced-based practices at all relevant organizational levels. They use their understanding of the effects of cultural, social, and economic diversity and variations of the individual development to inform their development of programs and services for individuals with exceptional learning needs. Special educators continuously broaden and deepen their professional knowledge, and expand their expertise with instructional technologies, curriculum standards, effective teaching strategies, and assistive technologies to support access to learning. They use their deep understanding of how to coordinate educational standards to the needs of individuals with exceptional learning needs to help all individuals with exceptional learning needs to access challenging curriculum standards.
3. Research and Inquiry. Research and inquiry inform the decisions of special educators who have completed advanced programs in guiding professional practice. Special educators know models, theories, philosophies, and research methods that form the basis for evidence-based practices in special education. This knowledge includes information sources, data collection, and data analysis strategies. Special educators evaluate the appropriateness of research methodologies in relation to practices presented in the literature. They use educational research to improve instructional techniques, intervention strategies, and curricular materials. They foster an environment supportive of continuous instructional improvement, and engage in the design and implementation of action research. Special educators are able to use the literature to resolve issues of professional practice, and help others to understand various evidence-based practices.
4. Individual and Program Evaluation. Evaluation is critical to advanced practice of special educators. Underlying evaluation is the knowledge of systems and theories of educational assessment and evaluation, along with skills in the implementation of evidence-based practices in assessment. Effective special educators design and implement research activities to evaluate the effectiveness of instructional practices and, as appropriate to their role, to assess progress toward the organizational vision, mission, and goals of their programs. It is critical in evaluation that nonbiased assessment procedures are used in the selection of assessment instruments, methods, and procedures for both programs and individuals.
With respect to evaluation of individuals, special educators prepared at the advanced level are able to apply their knowledge and skill to all stages and purposes of evaluation including: prereferral and screening, preplacement for special education eligibility, monitoring and reporting learning progress in the general education curriculum and other individualized educational program goals.
5. Professional Development and Ethical Practice. Special educators are guided by the professional ethics and practice standards. Special educators have responsibility for promoting the success of individuals with exceptional learning needs, their families, and colleagues. They create supportive environments that safeguard the legal rights of students and their families. They model and promote ethical and professional practice. Special educators plan, present, and evaluate professional development, as appropriate to their roles, based on models that apply adult learning theories and focus on effective practice at all organizational levels. Special educators model their own commitment to continuously improving their own professional practice by participating in professional development themselves.
6. Collaboration. Special educators prepared at the advanced level have a deep understanding of the centrality and importance of consultation and collaboration to the roles within special education and use this deep understanding to integrate services for individuals with exceptional learning needs. They also understand the significance of the role of collaboration for both internal and external stakeholders, and apply their skill to promote understanding, resolve conflicts, and build consensus among both internal and external stakeholders to provide services to individuals with exceptional learning needs and their families.
They possess current knowledge of research on stages and models in both collaboration and consultation and ethical legal issues related to consultation and collaboration. Moreover, special educators prepared at the advanced level have a deep understanding of the possible interactions of language, diversity, culture and religion with contextual factors and how to use collaboration and consultation to enhance opportunities for individuals with exceptional learning needs.
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Department Website URL: http://coe.hawaii.edu/sped 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: http://www.cec.sped.org/Content/NavigationMenu/ProfessionalDevelopment/ProfessionalStandards/?from=tlcHome 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.
The M.Ed. program assessment system monitors candidate performance while enrolled in the program; candidates are expected to demonstrate mastery of the CEC Advanced Program Standards by scoring an Acceptable on all standards in each assessment product. From June 2011 through September 2012 all candidates in the M.Ed. Interdisciplinary program were assessed via the five required products completed during their program. Through completion of the products, candidate performance on CEC Advanced Standards One: Leadership and Policy, Two: Program Development and Organization, Three: Research and Inquiry, Four: Individual and Program Evaluation, Five: Professional Development and Ethical Practice, and Six: Collaboration was documented. Candidate performance on each product related to the CEC advanced standards is recorded as Acceptable, or Unacceptable. At Mid-Point check, candidate performance is assessed by (a) artifacts (products) that indicate the candidates’ knowledge gained by successful completion of courses, (b) skills demonstrated in research projects, papers and exams, and (c) dispositions documented in all courses. A decision is made on each candidate at Mid-Point Check: (a) candidate may proceed with no conditions, (b) candidate may proceed with conditions, or (c) candidate is dismissed from the program. At Exit, candidate performance is again assessed by (a) artifacts that indicate the candidates’ knowledge gained by successful completion of courses, (b) skills demonstrated in research projects and final paper, and dispositions documented in all courses. At Exit the unit requires all candidates to meet Graduate Division requirements for graduation (GPA 3.0, Plan A or B). A Final Checkpoint decision is made: (a) candidate has satisfactorily met requirements for graduation, (b) candidate must remain in program to meet certain conditions, or (c) candidate is dismissed from the program. A Follow-Up assessment by the unit gathers surveys for all program graduates.
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 data of candidate performance on the five assessments related to the CEC Advanced Program standards were gathered. All candidates in the program were assessed on the five products as they completed each course with a required product. A frequency count of ratings (Acceptable, Unacceptable) was generated for each standard assessed in each product.
8) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
Twenty-two candidates currently enrolled in the M.Ed. Interdisciplinary program and taking courses with required assessment products were assessed. All M.Ed. candidates enrolled in courses with required assessment products were included in this sample.
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: 10) 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.Service Learning Project in SPED 602 (Fall 2011). Of the nine candidates who completed the service learning project in SPED 602 eight candidates scored Acceptable for a rate of 89% for CEC Advanced Standard 1: Leadership and Policy and one of the nine candidates scored an Unacceptable for a rate of 11%. Of the nine candidates who completed the service learning project in SPED 602 eight scored Acceptable for a rate of 89% and one scored Unacceptable for a rate of 11% for CEC Advanced Standard 2: Collaboration.
Assessment 2. Midterm Exam in SPED 642 (Fall 2011). Of the nine candidates who completed the midterm exam in SPED 642 eight candidates scored Acceptable for a rate of 89% for CEC Advanced Standard 3: Research and Inquiry and one of the nine candidates scored an Unacceptable for a rate of 11%.
Assessment 3. IRB Proposal/Application in SPED 688 (Spring 2012). Of the nine candidates who completed the IRB proposal/application in SPED 688 six candidates scored Acceptable for a rate of 67% for CEC Advanced Standard 3: Research and Inquiry and three of the nine candidates scored an Unacceptable for a rate of 33%. Of the nine candidates who completed the IRB proposal/application in SPED 688 six candidates scored Acceptable for a rate of 67% for Standard 5: Professional Development & Ethical Practice and three of the nine candidates scored an Unacceptable for a rate of 33%.
Assessment 4. Plan A/B Paper in SPED 700/695 (Fall 2011). Only one candidate completed the Plan B paper in SPED 695 in Fall 2011. That candidate scored Acceptable for a rate of 100% for CEC Advanced Standard 3: Research and Inquiry and for Standard 5: Professional Development & Ethical Practice.
Assessment 5. Presentation/Workshop on a topic in special education in SPED 641 (Spring 2012). Of the 12 candidates who completed the Presentation/Workshop in SPED 641 eleven candidates scored Acceptable for a rate of 92% for CEC Advanced Standard 5: Professional Development & Ethical Practice and one candidate scored Unacceptable for a rate of 8%.
12) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.
Results of the five assessments indicate mastery of the CEC Advanced standards, with the strong majority of candidates receiving a rating of Acceptable on most assessments. On four of five assessments at least 89% of the candidates received a rating of Acceptable. However, on one of the assessments, the IRB Proposal/Application about 2/3rd (67%) of the candidates (n=9) scored Acceptable and 1/3rd (33%) of the candidates (n=3) scored Unacceptable. The IRB Proposal/Application addresses CEC Advanced Standards 3 and 5. Standard 3 is also addressed in the Midterm Exam and the Plan A/B Paper. Eighty nine percent of the candidates demonstrated competency on standard 3 for both the Midterm Exam (n = 9) and the Plan A/B Paper (n = 1). Standard 5 is also addressed in the Presentation/Workshop and in the Plan A/B Paper. Eighty nine percent of the candidates demonstrated competency on standard 5 for the Presentation/Workshop (n = 12) and the Plan A/B Paper (n = 1).
After further investigation of the candidates that did not demonstrate competency of Standards 3 and 5 addressed in the IRB Proposal/Application, one candidate was an international student who returned home before completing the product. Another candidate was enrolled in two special education programs, the M.Ed. Interdisciplinary Program and the Post-Baccalaureate Certificate in Special Education Program, who decided to complete the Post-Baccalaureate Program Fall 2012 and then complete the M.Ed. Interdisciplinary Program. Overall, the results indicate strong candidate mastery of the CEC standards.
The department continuously reviews candidate data during faculty, committee, and program meetings. Faculty reviewed data and feedback from candidates, instructors, and faculty to determine changes to the program, courses, or products. Because this was the first year these assessment products were included in the revised M.Ed. Interdisciplinary Program the faculty decided to continue using the products for content knowledge, skills, and dispositions. The faculty will review the IRB Proposal product in SPED 688 prior to the course being taught and will discuss supports (e. g. submitting drafts of specific components of the IRB) to ensure candidates successfully complete the IRB Proposal.
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.
The M.Ed. Interdisciplinary program products were reviewed in March 2011. As a result of faculty discussions, candidate feedback, and analysis of the data a revised curriculum map for the M.Ed. Interdisciplinary Program was developed. The revised curriculum map underwent substantial program change fall 2011 and as a result three of the assessment products from the 2010-2011program remained in the revised program (Midterm Exam, IRB Proposal/Application and Plan A/B Paper), two assessment products were eliminated (Analysis and Issues Paper and Exemplary Practices Paper) and two new assessment products were added (Service Learning Project and Presentation/Workshop). Candidates’ dispositions were assessed in each special education course in the M.Ed. Interdisciplinary Program.
Faculty has discussed the placement of SPED 688 and the IRB Proposal/Application in the M.Ed. Interdisciplinary Program. Faculty discussed whether SPED 688 which is currently taught during the second semester of the program should be taught later in the program when candidates have had sufficient exposure to research topics to develop a research proposal that requires IRB approval. Faculty realized it is critical that all of the M.Ed. Interdisciplinary candidates successfully complete an IRB proposal to ensure they are prepared to complete their Plan A/B papers. Faculty did not come to a consensus regarding the placement of SPED 688 in the program but will continue this discussion throughout the Fall 2012 semester.
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 is the first report that includes data from these assessments that were adopted in May 2011. Therefore we do not intend to change any of the assessments until we have at least one more application of data for each assessment. In addition, because the number of candidates was small in several of the courses (n = 9; n = 1) faculty decided not to make program changes until we have more data.