Revisiting the
Core Student Outcomes
Study
Lynda Milne
Minnesota State Colleges & Universities
CAOs Winter Meeting
February 18, 2010
Executive Summary

All institutions responded
– 27 have core institutional outcomes
– 2 have “many program outcomes”
– 3 have “not yet detailed outcomes”

Few have fully defined,
disseminated, integrated, and
assess outcomes

Common
–
–
–
–
Communication
Thinking
Technology, information literacy
Diversity, ethics
National Studies

AAC&U Report, January 2007
– College Learning for the New Global
Century
– “Near-total public silence about what
contemporary college graduates
need to know and be able to do.”
– Essential Learning Outcomes

Wabash National Study of Liberal
Arts Education, Fall 2006
– 7 outcomes associated with
undergraduate education
Institutional Studies

Alverno College
– Eight Abilities (since 1970s)

Indiana University Purdue
University Indianapolis
– Six principles of undergraduate
learning

University of Albama at
Birmingham
– Shared Vision for Undergraduates: 4
major areas of competency
Institutional Studies, 2

Moraine Park Technical College
(Wisconsin)
– 7 Core Abilities promoted to all
students from registration through
graduation

Portland Community College
(Oregon)
– 6 Core Outcomes, including selfreflection on learning at graduation

University of Minnesota (03/07)
– 7 Student Learning Outcomes
– 7 Student Developmental Outcomes
Universal Outcomes

Communication
– Often embracing many other
outcomes (group interaction,
diversity, writing, computer literacy)

Thinking
– Usually including problem-solving
and critical thinking, but also
including creativity, aesthetic
appreciation, decision-making
Common Outcomes

Technology and Information
Literacy
– From keyboarding to presentation of
information

Diversity, Culture, Global
Awareness
– Sometimes separate goals;
sometimes including citizenship

Ethics and Social Responsibility
– Often mirrors MnTC, but may include
citizenship, diversity, team work,
decision-making, personal values

Social Interaction, Cooperation
– Distinct goal at six 2-year colleges
Common Outcomes

Personal Goals, Lifelong Learning
– At 11 institutions

Mathematics
– Sometimes includes logical
reasoning, problem-solving

Citizenship
– Again, may include respect for
diversity, social responsibility

Attitudinal/developmental
– Professional attitude, readiness for
career, take pride in work; balance
Unique Outcomes

Attitudinal/developmental
– Professional attitude, readiness for
career, take pride in work; balance

Actively engage in
creative/performing arts

Learn to use the resources of the
college’s academic community
and its urban context for learning
Processes

Related to accreditation

Related to institutional mission
changes

Some involve faculty, staff,
students; some include
community or program advisory
committees

Some engaged external
consultants

Several have plans for ongoing
review and revision
Assessment




Several institutions have direct
ties between course learning
outcomes and their institutional
core outcomes
Several are using rubrics, WIDS
One considered student and
institutional portfolios
Several institutions are using—or
contemplating using—
standardized tests at or near
graduation
– Collegiate Assessment of Academic
Proficiency, California Critical
Thinking Skills Test, California
Critical Thinking Dispositions Test
Integration

Commonly cited communication
methods
– Web site, catalog, student handbook

Integration into curriculum
development common

Information for students less
common and visible

A few provide information for
students at orientation; one
administers an annual
assessment of students
Surprises

Differences among our
institutions—even within sectors

Science and math not universally
defined as core outcomes

Variations on Minnesota Transfer
Curriculum
2007 Findings
Systemwide Learning
Outcomes
1.
Not commonly or
comprehensively defined
2.
Assessment not well advanced
at many institutions;
3.
No consensus on need for
systemwide collaboration—HLC
driven instead
Next Steps?

Maintain Web site
– Permit institutions to learn from one
another
– Add ways for institutions to update
information
– Provide additional resources for
institutions


Examples of assessments
Process details (faculty conversations…)
– CAOs, deans, fall 2007
Next Steps?

Determine implications of study for
faculty development

Decide whether and how follow-up work
belongs in ongoing CTL Work Plan

Put this PPT on Core Outcomes Web
site

Ask leadership to determine how the
system can support coordinated,
informed efforts across the system—
without dictating standardized
outcomes?
– CTL Steering Committee 11/15/07
Next Steps?

Crosswalk to high-quality learning
outcomes?

Input for Minnesota Transfer
Curriculum (revision)

Tie it to/use to inform STEM
initiatives

Focus on assessment of
outcomes
– AVCs, Presidents, Spring 2008
Changing Contexts
2008-2010

HLC / AQIP push for learning
outcomes even stronger

More national studies, even
international
–
–
–
–

AAC&U Survey, 2009
OECD
NOQA
Bologna Tuning
Other systems
– University System of Georgia
– Montana University System

Increasing public call for
accountability

BOT interest in system measures
of learning outcomes
Next Steps Now?

How useful has this repository
been? For what purposes?

Should it become a database?
– Definitions of outcome goals
– Process standards
– Promulgation/integration tools and
methods
– Assessment tools
– Actual outcomes

Should there be common
framework across system?

How should the system support
coordination and consistency
without mandates?
Next Steps Now?

What are HLC’s expectations re
systemwide learning outcomes?
–
“Assessment” still a cited item for
many institutions

How does this work align with the
MnTC’s competencies?

How do MnSCU’s competencies
align with work found in national
studies (AAC&U’s surveys, VALUEs
rubrics)?

CAOs , February 2010
Next Steps Now?

Promote; increase awareness

Move toward creation of a
database for easy info retrieval

Through faculty development,
transform this process from
bureaucracy to meaning

Link to people/faculty experts
through CTL (NOT just a database)

Use engaged learning, network for
faculty around this (ala PKAL)

Use as professional development
tool for assessment (help faculty
learn)

CAOs , February 2010
Next Steps Now?

Should there be a common
framework?
–
–
–
–
If institutions decide for themselves,
(smaller ones may have a
disadvantage without resources)
What’s the difference between
framework and guidelines?
Some guidelines could be helpful:
e.g., what are the expectations?
Maybe start with the universally
common outcomes, communication
& critical thinking , to begin
statewide conversations and work
on outcomes

CAOs , February 2010
Next Steps Now?

Should there be a common
framework?
–
Recognize that even terms like
“critical thinking” are not universal
across programs, institutional
types—and how does language
reflect mission, culture?

CAOs , February 2010
Next Steps Now?

Should there be a common
framework?
–
RCTC has done a lot of review of
software packages (to capture, store
assessment data)—found that they
overlapped with data/processes in
place.
o
–
D2L is very close to having many critical
capabilities for assessment
Repository ought to be there and be
updatable by institutions
Permits institutions to document,
authenticate their process, AND
o Learn from one another
o

CAOs , February 2010
Next Steps Now?

o
Support coordination and
consistency
Through faculty development, CTL
– Recognize that each college has a
LOT of resources (e.g., South
Central’s student learning site has
many resources for faculty)
– Create pass-throughs to
college/university sites, make
CURRENT data easily available.

CAOs , February 2010