Unit: Curriculum Studies
Program: Curriculum Studies (MEd)
Degree: Master's
Date: Tue Oct 13, 2009 - 9:58:52 am

1) List your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs).

The program is research-based and grounded in theory. Its goals are to:

  1. Develop well-informed and reflective practitioners.
  2. Enhance teachers’ knowledge and their instructional skills.
  3. Foster the application of new knowledge in the schools.
  4. Enhance teachers’ ability to understand and implement research.
  5. Encourage and increase the professionalism of teachers in Hawai‘i, as well as other States and nations of the Pacific Rim.
  6. Prepare those interested in entering doctoral programs in education.

Objectives of the CS program are that students:

  1. Increase knowledge in one or more areas of inquiry.
  2. Reflect on practice.
  3. Become better informed about the developmental and educational needs of children and adolescents from various communities.
  4. Become more skillful in developing educational programs to meet individual and group needs.
  5. Become more versatile in the use of a variety of teaching strategies.
  6. Learn about new issues and trends in their fields.
  7. Increase understanding of educational issues related to diversity and multiculturalism.
  8. Enhance ability to implement culturally responsive teaching practices.
  9. Investigate issues and trends in assessment.
  10. Increase understanding and ability to apply and conduct educational research.
  11. Acquire understanding of ethical dimensions of classroom research.
  12. Become more able to provide leadership in a classroom, school or school system. 

2) Where are your program's SLOs published?

Department Website URL:
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) Upload your program's current curriculum map(s) as a PDF.

Curriculum Map File(s) from 2009:

4) What percentage of courses have the course SLOs explicitly stated on the course syllabus, department website, or other publicly available document? (Check one)


5) State the SLO(s) that was Assessed, Targeted, or Studied

The College of Education is accredited by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), so our assessments address program standards (please see Curriculum Map) and the following NCATE standard:

Standard 1: CandidateKnowledge, 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).

6) State the Assessment Question(s) and/or Goal(s) of Assessment Activity

 What percent of students are judged to be acceptable on each of 6 assessments of Program and NCATE standards (Please see Curriculum Map).

7) State the Type(s) of Evidence Gathered

Faculty completed rubrics, based on the following assignments:

1. Review of Literature, EDCS 622

2. Concluding Chapter Plan A/B or Conclusion of Portfolio, Final project

3. Lesson Series: Curriculum Emphasis, Specialization courses

4. Application to Committee on Human Subjects (CHS), Research courses

5. Lesson Series: Special Needs/Cultural Emphasis, Specialization courses

6. Personal Curriculum History, EDCS 667 

8) State How the Evidence was Interpreted, Evaluated, or Analyzed

Faculty (as shown below) created tables of results, which the Department Chair compiled into summary tables for each assessment. Results continue to be analyzed and interpreted at faculty meetings.

1. Review of Literature was assessed by EDCS 622 instructors.

2. Concluding Chapter Plan A/B or Conclusion of Portfolio was assessed by chairs and committee members (Plan A) or advisors and second readers (Plan B).

3. Lesson Series: Curriculum Emphasis was assessed by specialization course instructors.

4. Application to Committee on Human Subjects (CHS) was assessed by research course instructors.

5. Lesson Series: Special Needs/Cultural Emphasis was assessed by specialization course instructors.

6. Personal Curriculum History was assessed by EDCS 667 instructors. 

9) State How Many Pieces of Evidence Were Collected

We attempted to assess all students who were at the appropriate place in the program. Numbers of pieces of evidence were:

Assessment 1: 25

Assessment 2: 38

Assessment 3: 82

Assessment 4: 35

Assessment 5: 86

Assessment 6: 15 

10) Summarize the Actual Results



(1) Knowledge (knowledgeable):

1. Review of Literature 

2. Concluding chapter Plan A/B


Fall 100%/Spring 78%

Fall 100%/Spring 100%

(2) Skills (effective):

3. Lesson Series: Curriculum Emphasis 

4. Application to Committee on Human Subjects (CHS)

Fall 97%/Spring 95%  

Fall 100%/Spring 100% 

(3) Dispositions(caring/professional/ethical): 

5. Lesson Series: Special Needs/Cultural Emphasis 

 6. Personal Curriculum History

Fall 93%/Spring 97%  

Spring 80%   

11) Briefly Describe the Distribution and Discussion of Results

All department faculty received the results, and our report is posted on the College's NCATE Web site. Discussion is underway as we prepare for a Focus Visit, November 2-3.

12) Describe Conclusions and Discoveries

Candidates performed satisfactorily on these two knowledge assessments, and generally met the standards for knowledge of research, and knowledge of content and pedagogy set by the department.

Some candidates fell short in their acquisition of technical writing skills associated with thoughtful preparation of research papers.

Candidates met skills standards and demonstrated that they are able to create research-based curriculum, choose appropriate pedagogical strategies, and in some instances showed that they could provide effective intstruction and assess the effects of that instruction. Some evidence of a lack of assessment practices emerged.

The relatively new requirement to either gain CHS approval or be exempted from the need for approval is not yet being satisfactorily assessed.

These two assessments were the most recent developed by the faculty. Not many incorporated the first assessment into their requirements. Candidates performed well in identifying special needs and planning a series of lessons for an inclusive classroom

On the basis of a limited data set, candidates did not reveal the expected knowledge of professional ethics in their personal curriculum histories.

13) Use of Results/Program Modifications: State How the Program Used the Results --or-- Explain Planned Use of Results

Steps for Improvement

Exemplars of literature reviews from Fall 2008 and Spring 2009 EDCS 622 courses will be reviewed during the coming Fall 2009 semester by faculty who may recommend that explicit mention of technical writing skills be added to the course outline for this course.

Samples of lesson series are available to faculty electronically. Adding more consideration of assessment techniques to all specialization courses should be a topic of discussion by those faculty teaching those courses.

 The component for the Application to the Committee on Human Subjects that asks candidates to show that they have “sought appropriate permissions for dealing with minors” or demonstrated that they will be exempt from seeking such permission is not working and needs redrafting before the Fall semester begins.

The faculty needs to decide on the best set of courses in which to locate the Special Needs assessment which worked very well for the small numbers of courses that used it.

The faculty also needs serious discussion on how to better engage candidates in  the need to learn professional ethics and to understand the place of professional ethics in their own professional practice.

14) Reflect on the Assessment Process

This assessment process was a positive experience for our Department. We examined key program assignments in terms of our standards and goals.  The findings were encouraging overall, but identified areas for improvement, which is the goal of program evaluation. 

We discuss the assessments and implications at each faculty meeting. However, it's an ongoing process and I believe even more time should be allotted for improving the assessment process and use of results.

15) Other Important Information

16) FOR DISTANCE PROGRAMS ONLY: Explain how your program/department has adapted its assessment of student learning in the on-campus program to assess student learning in the distance education program.

17) FOR DISTANCE PROGRAMS ONLY: Summarize the actual student learning assessment results that compare the achievement of students in the on-campus program to students in the distance education program.