Program: Educational Psychology (MEd)
Degree: Master's
Date: Tue Sep 10, 2013 - 5:48:49 pm
1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.
- Educational Psychology graduate students are knowledgeable about learning and development, inquiry methods, and student assessment.
- Educational Psychology graduate students have inquiry skills to conduct scholarly research effectively.
- Educational Psychology graduate students present scholarly research effectively.
- 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, 2012 and September 30, 2013? (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, 2012 to September 30, 2013: 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’ proposals and final MEd papers (Plan B or thesis) and analyzed the literature reviews and methods sections of those documents. We also collected information on whether or not students had passed an online ethics course by the National Institutes of Health (for students who entered the program before fall 2012) or The Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) Program for the Protection of Human Research Subjects (for students who entered the program in fall 2012 or later).
8) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
There were eleven candidates for whom evidence was evaluated. These were all candidates who completed proposals and/or final master’s papers (Plan B or thesis).
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).
Nine students completed their master’s Plan B or thesis proposals. All of them received satisfactory or exemplary ratings for different aspects of the proposal literature review. Most of the students were rated as satisfactory, as opposed to exemplary, for the statement, context and organization of the literature review. However, 67% of the students was rated as exemplary for their writing style.
Ten students completed their master’s Plan B or thesis final papers. All of them received satisfactory or exemplary ratings for different aspects of their final literature review. On all aspects of the final literature review at least half or more of the students were rated as exemplary. For the statement of the problem, 80% was rated as exemplary. For organization and incorporating their advisor’s or thesis committee’s comments and suggestions, 60% was rated as exemplary. For context and writing style, 50% was rated as exemplary.
We wanted to know whether candidates had inquiry skills to conduct scholarly research effectively (SLO 2).
All of the nine candidates who wrote proposals were rated as satisfactory or exemplary for the different aspects of their proposal method section. The strongest aspect was the statement of the problem, as 67% of students were exemplary. For the description of the participants, 56% was rated as exemplary. For a description of the procedures, most (67%) was rated as satisfactory. For the description of the data analysis, 78% was rated as satisfactory.
For the final method section, 66% of the 50 ratings was exemplary, as opposed to satisfactory. The strongest aspects of the final method section were the description of the participants, with 80% rated as exemplary, and the research design, with 70% rated exemplary. Compared to previous years, students were rated as strong in data analysis as they were in description of procedures and incorporating comments and suggestions from their advisor or thesis committee. On these three aspects, 60% was rated as exemplary.
We wanted to know whether candidates could present scholarly research effectively (SLO 3).
Ten students made their master’s presentations. The students were rated as exemplary on most components, as 66% of the 50 ratings was exemplary. All but one student was rated as exemplary for staying within the time limits. In all other categories, 60% was rated as exemplary.
We wanted to know if candidates modeled the ethical treatment of research participants (SLO 4).
All nine students (100%) successfully completed an on-line course on the ethical treatment of human participants in research.
12) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.
The faculty was pleased that the data analysis section of students’ final papers was rated much higher than has been the case in the past. Some time ago, the faculty made a change in advising to recommend that students take an additional research methods class (either statistics or qualitative analysis). It may be that we are finally seeing the results of this advising change. We will continue to make such recommendations to future students.
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 feel that the data indicate that students have improved from the stage of writing their proposals to completing their final papers, as rating for students who completed their proposals and papers in the same year were generally higher for the final paper literature review and method sections.
The faculty has felt that a rubric that has more levels will better capture variability in students’ performances. They again felt that this was the case, and will consider revising the tools to include more levels.