Degree Program Assessment Reports

MEd Early Childhood Education Program SLOs

The MEd in ECE program includes a unique set of program assessments designed to measure the candidates’ competency in meeting Five Core Program Standards. These assessments are based on the unit’s Conceptual Framework. They include measures of each candidate’s knowledge about child development and the field of early childhood education, ability to contribute to leadership in the profession as an effective early childhood educator, and disposition as a caring and ethical professional. These three foci are conceptual framework of the College of Education.

The conceptual framework of the COE provides broad direction and focus for the program design: the MEd in ECE provides a narrower lens through which to interpret and manifest the conceptual framework. The two are directly linked through the mission, the program goals and the objectives of the MEd in ECE. These, in turn are linked to Program Standards and Key Assessments.

The mission of the MEd in ECE is to develop depth of knowledge, collaboration skills, and the disposition to engage in leadership activities and advocacy in the field of education. Students develop the capacity to work collaboratively to design and implement high quality, inclusive programs for young children and their families.

The goal of the MEd in ECE program is to provide candidates with a conceptual framework, skills, and knowledge that will make them more effective in their roles as early childhood educators. It is designed to develop master's level competence relating to five Core Program Standards and two additional candidate selected Program Standards. Student learning outcomes are embedded in each of the required courses and the Plan B project - a Standards-Based Portfolio.

The Five Core Program Standards embedded in the required courses. SLOs are articulated below by standard:

Standard ONE: Child Development

MEd ECE graduates are knowledgeable about the developmental needs of young children from the prenatal period to eight years of age. As professionals who care about children achieving their maximum potential, they use that knowledge to effectively create programs that support children’s optimal development and to effectively develop translational strategies for families in an ethical and culturally sensitive manner.

SLOS for Standard 1

1.1  Students can explain research based knowledge of: 1) the unique individual nature of early childhood development and the role of maturation, protection, and experience in the development of domains, 2) the interactions between maturation and experience, 3) inter-relationships among the domains and contexts of development

1.2  Students can apply knowledge of child development by contributing to improving the quality of programs so that they better support each child's growth and learning.

Standard TWO: The Field of Early Childhood Education and Care

MEd ECE graduates are knowledgeable about current issues and trends in early childhood care and education. As professionals who care about the larger needs of the community, they use that knowledge to effectively provide ethical and culturally sensitive leadership and advocacy with regard to policy decision-making, government agencies, and their own programs.

SLOS for Standard 2

2.1  Students can access professional literature on current issues or trends in ECEC, analyze the quality of information, and communicate key information to others.

2.2  Students can analyze present policy, practices and programs and actively promote policies that improve the quality of programs for children by meaningfully participating in advocacy or leadership activities that reflect research based knowledge of effective ECEC programs and practices.

Standard THREE: Early Childhood Special Education

MEd ECE graduates are knowledgeable about children and families with special needs. As professionals who care about equity for all children and families, they effectively use their knowledge to develop inclusive educational programs to meet individual and group needs in an ethical, caring, and culturally inclusive manner.

SLOS for Standard

3.1  Students can review the literature on: 1) evolving trends in special education, 2) recommended practices regarding the needs of families with infants and young children with disabilities, 3) characteristics of infants and young children with disabilities, 4) legislative mandates for young children with special needs, 5) culturally inclusive assessment processes and procedures, 6) effective implementation of trends in the design and implementation of intervention and instruction in inclusive settings.

3.2  Students can describe legislation that affects young children with special needs/disabilities and the services and programs in Hawai'i that result from federal legislation.

3.3  Students can develop and implement an appropriate module for a 3 hour workshop that focuses on one or more topics related to inclusion of children with special needs OR a curriculum modification for children with special needs in their care based on their knowledge of young children with special needs and research based practices that support their development and learning.

3.4 Students can demonstrate the disposition to reflect on the effectiveness of present programs for infants and young children with disabilities and contribute to the development of culturally sensitive, inclusive settings that meet the needs of each child with a disability and his or her family.

Standard FOUR: Professionalism

MEd ECE graduates are knowledgeable about what it means to be a professional in the field of early childhood education. As professionals who care about the field, they work effectively in collaboration with families and other professionals to provide services in an ethical, caring and culturally sensitive manner. Candidates identify and conduct themselves as members of the early childhood profession. They know and use ethical guidelines and other professional standards related to early childhood practice.

SLOS for Standard 4

4.1  Students can describe the ethical and professional responsibilities of early childhood educators and the role of the NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct and other ethical codes in guiding professional practice.

4.2  Students can effectively analyze an ethical dilemma and engage in a methodical process to resolve it using the NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct to guide decision making.

4.3  Students can reflect on and demonstrate professional dispositions in their interactions with children, families, colleagues, and the general public and intentional growth in the breadth and scope of leadership within the professional community through their involvement in professional activities within and outside of the workplace.

Standard FIVE: Research

MEd ECE graduates are knowledgeable about the role of research in the field of early childhood education. As professionals who care about using research-based strategies and methods, they effectively reflect on their current practice and initiate their own action-research projects. They critically analyze, and apply current educational research to their own settings.

SLOS for Standard 5

5.1    Students can state: 1)  the characteristics of qualitative research design and paradigms, 2) strategies and techniques for qualitative inquiry, 3) ethical and social implications of various desicions, research strategies and report by qualitative and other researchers, and, 4) the strengths and weaknesses of experimental and qualitative research approaches.

5.2 Students can critically review and synthesize research and evaluation literature.

5.3  Students can design, implement, and report on an original qualitative action research that is consistent with the evaluation protocols suitable for inquiry in his/her area of specialization and practice

During the period between June 1, 2012 and September 30, 2013, data was gathered to address each of the following four assessment questions. Data for questions 1-3 was triangulated across student work samples and instructor evalution scores, comments from the previous Program Director on an NCATE program report, and a mid-way student survey created by the current Program Director. Data for question 4 was gathered in a mid-way survey created by the Program Director.

Assessment Questions:

1. How well do SLOS 1.1, 1.2, the content of the FamR 491 which it is embedded in, and the assessments developed for these SLOs reflect the current needs of current students? Are students able to demonstrate proficiency relative to the SLOS?

20 students were enrolled in FamR 491 in Summer 2012, the first summer of instruction or this cohort. Of these 18 demonstrated proficiency in key assessments for SLOS 1.1 and 1.2, for Standard 1. The 2 students who did not score an acceptable rating struggled with academic skills in general and entered the program with fewer foundational courses in ECE than most students. The FamR 491 course instructor evaluated the assessments and entered scores. Three student work samples were submitted for external review as part of our NCATE accreditation exhibits.

The transition to a graduate level program can be challenging for the non-traditional student population that is typical of this field of study. The program embodies a social justice agenda and aims to be inclusive and to foster leadership in student/practitioner groups that have not historically held positions of power. Typically, practitioners in the field of early childhood are women, minorities, and employed in positions with low socio-economic status. Because of the commitment to developing leaders that will improve the stature of the field, there will be some students who will find the coursework challenging. There is a to need to identify early on those students that may need additional supports and to strengthen their foundational coursework prior to or early on in the program.

14 of the 18 students also completed a mid-way program survey to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. One item asked students to assess the effectiveness of their coursework in enabling them to demonstrate proficiency in the SLOS for Standard 1. Students rated program effectiveness on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (to a great extent). The results were as follows:

Score of 3, n = 1

Score of 4, n = 7

Score of 5, n = 6

The ratings suggest that students generally perceived the coursework was effective or very effective in contributing to their ability to demonstrate competency in SLOS 1.1 and 1.2.

2. How well do SLOS 2.1, 2.2, the content of the EDCS 667B which it is embedded in, and the assessments developed for these SLOs reflect the current needs of current students? Are students able to demonstrate proficiency relative to the SLOS?

20 students were enrolled in EDCS 667B in Summer 2012. Alll 20 demonstrated proficiency in key assessments for SLOS 2.1 and 2.2, for Standard 1. The EDCS 667B course instructor evaluated the assessments and entered scores. Three student work samples were submitted for external review.  The data suggests that steps taken to strengthen this assessment were successful in helping students to acquire the skills to engage in the academic and writing skills to conduct a literature review on an issue or trend in the field of early childhood education. Students reported that the feedback on assignments and detailed instructions for the assessment were very beneficial.

14 of the 18 students also completed a mid-way program survey to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. One item asked students to assess the effectiveness of their coursework in enabling them to demonstrate proficiency in the SLOS for Standard 2. Students rated program effectiveness on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (to a great extent). The results were as follows:

Score of 3, n = 2

Score of 4, n = 4

Score of 5, n = 8

The ratings suggest that students generally perceived the coursework was effective or very effective in contributing to their ability to demonstrate competency in SLOS 2.1 and 2.2. A majority of the students rated the coursework as contributing to a great extent to their emerging competency in this area.

3. How well do SLOS 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 the content of the SPED 631 which it is embedded in, and the assessments developed for these SLOs reflect the current needs of current students? Are students able to demonstrate proficiency relative to the SLOS?

18 students were enrolled in SPED 631 in Summer 2013. Of these 15 demonstrated proficiency in key assessments for SLOS 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4, for Standard 3. There were 3 students who unable to complete the assignment due to extenuating personal situations. They received an “I” for courses and will be submitting assessments in Fall 2013. The SpED 631 course instructors evaluated the assessments and entered scores. Three student work samples were submitted for external review. Instructors reported modifications to the course content to better meet the needs of the population served and to support non-special education practitioners in acquiring the knowledge and skills to work in partnership with special educators for students across the continuum of children, birth to 5 years old.

14 of the 18 students also completed a mid-way program survey to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. One item asked students to assess the effectiveness of their coursework in enabling them to demonstrate proficiency in the SLOS for Standard 3. Students rated program effectiveness on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (to a great extent). The results were as follows:

Score of 3, n = 3

Score of 4, n = 3

Score of 5, n = 8

The ratings suggest that students generally perceived the coursework was effective or very effective in contributing to their ability to demonstrate competency in SLOS 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4. This was the first course in special education for many of the students, although several students in the program are special educators. These factors may have contributed to student perception of course effectiveness.

4. What supports do student find most effective in facilitating their ability to progress in developing Plan B - Portfolios that demonstrate their competencies relative to these SLOS? What do they find least helpful?

Several items on a mid-way program evaluation developed by the Program Director examined factors that students found most supportive and least supportive in enabling them to fulfill their capstone, Plan B requirements, which encompass all SLOs for the program.  Students reported the following resources most helpful/most used:

The MEd ECE Laulima Program Management System

One-to-one conferencing with program advisor

Feedback on draft documents

Opportunities to engage in leadership activities initiated or supported by the program faculty

Overall, students reported the following program resources they found least helpful/not used were:

Mentoring by past cohort alumni

Internships   (Most students were full-time practitioners and so did not take part in internships)

One of the emerging insights has been the changing demographics of the students enrolled in the program. The MEd ECE program began with a focus on meeting the needs for a statewide graduate level early childhood education degree to meet statewide needs. There was no graduate level option at the time it was created. The average age of students was much older and students typically came from settings that had more economic resources (e.g. Kamehameha Schools, DOE, UH System). There was also broader representation in Cohorts I and II, of practitioners employed in programs serving Native Hawaiian children and families and students from the neighbor islands.

The current cohort includes less neighbor island representation, but more students from the Pacific Basin. Also, the students are younger and earlier in their careeers. There are more students from small, community based preschools, but there is less representation of  students employed in alternative programs that typically serve the Native Hawaiian community, such as Kamehameha Schools, Punana Leo or the Family Child Interactive Learning programs. We are reflecting on how to better meet the needs of a changing student body which includes more  "emerging" rather than established leaders in the field and also how to deepen studentsʻ connections with the place and purpose of this University, while promoting a broader, more global understanding that can our non-resident students can apply to the communities they serve.

An additional insight is the need to expand our assessment practices to find out more about how our graduates contribute to their communities and the  of the workplace across various early childhood settings where they are employed. This can be an additional source of information that can inform program design in the future.