1. Revisiting the Core Student Outcomes Study Lynda Milne Minnesota State Colleges & Universities CAOs Winter Meeting February 18, 2010

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. Surprises Differences among our institutions—even within sectors Science and math not universally defined as core outcomes Variations on Minnesota Transfer Curriculum

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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 siteCore 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

17. 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

18. Changing Contexts 2008-2010 HLC / AQIP push for learning outcomes even stronger More national studies, even international –AAC&U Survey, 2009AAC&U Survey –OECDOECD –NOQANOQA –Bologna TuningBologna Tuning Other systems –University System of GeorgiaUniversity System of Georgia –Montana University SystemMontana University System Increasing public call for accountability BOT interest in system measures of learning outcomes

19. 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?

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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 o Permits institutions to document, authenticate their process, AND o Learn from one another  CAOs, February 2010

25. Next Steps Now? Support coordination and consistency o 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