Unit: Educational Psychology
Program: Educational Psychology (PhD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Tue Sep 10, 2013 - 5:58:59 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: https://coe.hawaii.edu/academics/educational-psychology
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:

3) Select one option:

Curriculum Map File(s) from 2013:

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, 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.)

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 dissertations 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.

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)

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)

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.

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.

Because there were so few candidates completing each of the assessments, the faculty decided to wait a year so that they can analyze more data and the analysis will be more meaningful.