Program: Educational Psychology (PhD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Fri Oct 26, 2012 - 6:31:23 pm
1) Below are your program's 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.
4. 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) 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 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 scholarly research effectively (SLO 2).
3. Could present scholarly research effectively (SLO 3).
4. Modeled the ethical treatment of research participants (SLO 4).
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.
We collected candidates’ dissertation proposals and dissertations and analyzed the literature reviews and methods sections of those documents. We also collected documentation on whether or not students’ research was approved by the UH Committee on Human Studies.
8) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
There were five candidates for whom evidence was evaluated. These were candidates who completed dissertation proposals or dissertations.
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.
We wanted to know whether candidates were knowledgeable about learning and development, inquiry methods, and student assessment (SLO 1).
Two candidates completed their dissertation proposals. For their proposal literature review, one candidate was exemplary on all components. The other candidate was exemplary in all one component (contextualizing the research question in the broader scholarly context). For this component the candidate was rated as satisfactory.
Three candidates completed their dissertations. For the dissertation literature review, two candidates were rated as exemplary on all components. The third candidate was rated as satisfactory in three of the five components and exemplary in the other two.
We wanted to know whether candidates had inquiry skills to conduct scholarly research effectively (SLO 2).
Of the two candidates who completed their dissertation proposals, one candidate was rated as exemplary in all components of the proposal method section. The other candidate was rated as exemplary in all categories except data analysis, which was rated as satisfactory.
Of the three candidates who completed their dissertations, two were rated as exemplary on all components and the third candidate was rated as satisfactory on all but one component (description of the participants). This latter component was rated as exemplary.
We wanted to know whether candidates could present scholarly research effectively (SLO 3).
Of the three candidates who presented their dissertations, two were rated as exemplary on all components, and the third candidate was rated as exemplary on three components and satisfactory on two components.
We wanted to know if candidates modeled the ethical treatment of research participants (SLO 4).
The two candidates who submitted a human subjects application for their research received approval from the Committee on Human Studies.
12) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.
The faculty felt that the one student who received lower ratings than other candidates was not typical of others in the program. All other candidates appeared to do well on the proposals, final dissertation, and dissertation presentation.
The faculty was particularly happy to see that students' understanding of data analysis appears to have improved from previous years, and will continue to advise students to take course work in this area and guide them as we have been doing in their dissertation preparation and completion.
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 faculty felt that because not all students are required to complete a human subjects application on their own, a better assessment of their understanding of the ethical treatment of human subjects can be completion of the CITI basic/ refresher online course.
The faculty felt that a rubric that has more levels will better capture variability in students’ performances and will consider revising our tools to include more levels.