Unit: Institute for Teacher Education
Program: Education: Teaching (MEdT)
Degree: Master's
Date: Thu Oct 10, 2013 - 7:57:09 pm

1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.

The ultimate goal of participation in the Master of Education in Teaching Program (MEdT) is a recommendation for licensure as an elementary or secondary school teacher in the State of Hawaii.

The MEdT program relies on Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium Standards (InTASC) to guide the assessment of our teacher candidates. For the remainder of the report we will refer to the university graduate students in our program as candidates to avoid confusing them with the students, elementary and secondary children and adolescents, that the candidates teach.

The following InTASC standards serve as student learning outcomes

Standard 1: Focuses on the Learner

Standard 2: Creates and maintains a safe and positive learning environment

Standard 3: Adapts to learner diversity

Standard 4: Fosters effective communication in the learning environment

Standard 5: Demonstrates knowledge of content

Standard 6: Designs and provides meaningful learning experiences

Standard 7: Uses active learning strategies

Standard 8: Uses assessment strategies

Standard 9: Demonstrates professionalism

Standard 10: Fosters parent and school community relationships

2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.

Department Website URL:
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: http://tiny.cc/medt-candidatehandboo
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: NA

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 engaged in program assessment for two primary purposes. First we are required by our National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) to routinely assess our students and program and report that data to them in order to retain our national accreditations.

Germane to the Manoa Assessment report is the assessment faculty engage in that re-examines the course sequence, organization, and delivery that support the successful completion of our program by our candidates.

Questions include: 

Is the program structure and delivery robust enough to allow candidates completing the program to be confidently recommended for licensure?  Sub questions lined to SLOs include:

1. Can candidates plan and implement quality lessons with their students?

2. Are the students our candidates teach engaged and is there evidence of student learning?

3. Do candidates graduate with the dispositions expected of teaching professionals?

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.

Data collected as part of our NCATE reporting process yield information on each of the above sub-questions. The data tells how well candidates are progressing towards meeting competencies for licensure.

Other evidence includes minutes from faculty meeting discussions on program organization and structure.

8) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.

Five faculty (100% of those assigned to this task) working with 54 candidates completed student teaching evaluations on each candidate’s performance. Ten faculty (100% of those assigned to this task) completed dispositional evaluations on 96 candidates. Thirteen faculty members participated in the meeting discussions on ways in which to improve program delivery to better serve our students.

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.

Of the 54 students assessed on questions 1 and 2, 52 received acceptable or high rubric score. One of the two that did not receive an acceptable score was placed on a plan of assistance where detailed concerns and supports were identified and that candidate has since completed the program. The other candidate will not be recommended for licensure.

On question 3, data from two candidates was not acceptable. One candidate was dismissed from the program.  The second candidate is currently completing a remediation plan. On successful completion of that plan will allow the candidate to complete the program next semester. 

12) State how the program used the results or plans to use the results. Please be specific.

Three main actions resulted from examining the data that were collected. First, efforts were made to standardize evaluation forms that were being used by different faculty in the program. Second, a new process for identifying and informing candidates of their deficiencies was approved and implemented. Now candidates will be notified earlier than in prior semesters of faculty concerns of their performance and a paper trail will be created to identify supports for those struggling and to document concerns in the event more severe actions need to be undertaken. Third, the admissions process was amended to attempt to identify candidates prior to admissions who may not be ready for the academic work and professional dispositions expected by the program.

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.

Based on assessment data from across programs in the College of Educations, efforts are being made to standardize assessments across programs when those assessments are providing evidence on the same competencies. 

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.