Program: Curriculum Studies (MEd)
Date: Thu Oct 18, 2012 - 9:46:52 am
1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.
The program is research-based and grounded in theory. Its goals are to:
- Develop well-informed and reflective practitioners.
- Enhance teachers’ knowledge and their instructional skills.
- Foster the application of new knowledge in the schools.
- Enhance teachers’ ability to understand and implement research.
- Encourage and increase the professionalism of teachers in Hawai‘i, as well as other States and nations of the Pacific Rim.
- Prepare those interested in entering doctoral programs in education.
Objectives of the CS program are that students:
- Increase knowledge in one or more areas of inquiry.
- Reflect on practice.
- Become better informed about the developmental and educational needs of children and adolescents from various communities.
- Become more skillful in developing educational programs to meet individual and group needs.
- Become more versatile in the use of a variety of teaching strategies.
- Learn about new issues and trends in their fields.
- Increase understanding of educational issues related to diversity and multiculturalism.
- Enhance ability to implement culturally responsive teaching practices.
- Investigate issues and trends in assessment.
- Increase understanding and ability to apply and conduct educational research.
- Acquire understanding of ethical dimensions of classroom research.
- Become more able to provide leadership in a classroom, school or school system.
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: http://www.coe.hawaii.edu/documents/cs/CS1_2011_12.pdf
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: http://www.coe.hawaii.edu/documents/cs/CS2_2011_12.pdf
UHM Catalog. Page Number: http://www.catalog.hawaii.edu/schoolscolleges/education/edcs.htm
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online:
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.
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.)
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 College of Education is accredited by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), so our six assessments address four CS program standards (please see Curriculum Map) in relation to the following NCATE standard:
Standard 1: Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Professional Dispositions
Candidates preparing to work in schools as teachers or other school professionals know and demonstrate the content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and skills, pedagogical and professional knowledge and skills, and professional dispositions necessary to help all students learn. Assessments indicate that candidates meet professional, state, and institutional standards. (Professional Standards for the Accreditation of Teacher Preparation Institutions, NCATE, 2008, p. 16).
Five assessments (1, 3, 4, 5, and 6) are connected to coursework in the CS program, as shown in our Curriculum Map. Assessment 2 is based on the Plan A Thesis/Plan B Project. Assessors are asked to employ rubrics to make judgments of each student as either Target, Acceptable or Unacceptable on relevant CS standards for each assessment. The essential question is "What percentages of students are judged as Target, Acceptable and Unacceptable on each standard within each assessment?"
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.
Judgments of each individual student as target, acceptable, and unacceptable were entered into the College-wide Student Information System for the appropriate courses (Fall 11, Spring12, Summer 12) by faculty for Assessments 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Assessment staff within the College collated the overall results for each course electronically and forwarded this information to the department chair. For Assessment 2 Plan A Thesis chairs, and Plan B advisers directly communicated the assessment results for each student to the department chair.
8) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
Asessment 1: 51
Assessment 2: 86
Assessment 3: 99
Assessment 4: 77
Assessment 5: 101
Assessment 6: 107
9) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? (Check all that apply.)
Ad hoc faculty group
Persons or organization outside the university
Advisors (in student support services)
Students (graduate or undergraduate)
10) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? (Check all that apply.)
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)
11) For the assessment question(s) and/or assessment goal(s) stated in Question #6:
Summarize the actual results.
12) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.
Results will be discussed at a forthcoming faculty meeting. Faculty teaching the assessment courses will meet by course to exchange exemplars of assignments and to make suggestions to bring back to a later faculty meeting.
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.
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.
No further comments.