2007 Core Student

Outcomes Study

Deena Allen and Lynda Milne

Minnesota State Colleges & Universities

Leadership Council

Academic and Student Affairs

April 1, 2008

Acknowledgements

Stacy Wells, Century College

Julia Curtiss, Metropolitan State University

Executive Summary

All institutions responded– 26 have core institution-level

outcomes– 4 have “program outcomes”– 2 have “not yet detailed

outcomes”

Few have fully developed, disseminated, integrated, and assess outcomes

Common– Communication– Thinking– Technology, information

literacy– Diversity, ethics

Background

Past discussions on the role of liberal arts, liberal education

2010 conversations Minnesota Transfer

Curriculum Oversight Committee discussion on “educated Minnesotan”

Leadership Council, Nov 2006: study, not more conversations

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 Alabama 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

self-reflection 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

Responses to Date: CAOs /

Deans Maintain Web site

– Permits 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…)

Do not share with Board…yet

CAOs, Deans 10/29/07

Responses to Date:CTL Steering Committee

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

Questions for Leadership

How can this information support common goals across system—without creating new mandates?

High profile ASA initiative (like U-M)?– “We educate Minnesota, we make it work:

Here’s what our graduates know and can do.”

– AACU/CHEA “New Leadership for Student Learning and Accountability”

“Each college and university…should develop ambitious, specific, and clearly stated goals for student learning appropriate to its mission, resources, tradition, student body, and community setting.”

Does progress in this area—often a result of accreditation processes—belong in the accountability framework?

Next Steps?