Faculty Development

for Core Outcomes

Lynda Milne

POD Network Conference

Reno, Nevada

October 25, 2008

Acknowledgements

Stacy Wells, Century College

Julia Curtiss, Metropolitan State University

Contact Lynda Milne

Center for Teaching & Learninglynda.milne@so.mnscu.edu651-649-5741

Study Background

Past discussions on the role of liberal arts, liberal education

2010 conversations Minnesota Transfer

Curriculum Oversight Committee discussion on “educated Minnesotan”

National press for accountability

Leadership Council, Nov 2006: study, not more conversations

Study Summary Study purpose: collect data on all

32 system institutions’ institution-level core learning outcomes– Definition / detailed competencies– Dissemination to campus community– Integration throughout curricula– Assessment– Ongoing evaluation, revision processes

All institutions responded– 26 have core institution-level outcomes– 4 have “only program-level outcomes”– 2 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

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 Bowling Green State University

(Ohio)– 3 categories of University Learning

Outcomes, in addition to mastery of the learning outcomes of a field of study

Study Summary Study purpose: collect data on all

32 system institutions’ institution-level core learning outcomes– Definition / detailed competencies– Dissemination to campus community– Integration throughout curricula– Assessment– Ongoing evaluation, revision processes

All institutions responded– 26 have core institution-level outcomes– 4 have “only program-level outcomes”– 2 have “not yet detailed outcomes”

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

Common– Communication– Thinking– Technology, information literacy– Diversity, ethics

Let’s Talk

Manila handout questions Many of them ask about how

your center can help. Ignore those questions for now.

Take about 5 minutes to write answers about core outcomes at your college or university.

Get as far as you can, and then take another 10 minutes to discuss with one other person

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 as 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

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—soon: Voluntary System of Accountability (all 7 universities)

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 (statewide agreement on 10 common goals for student learning by time of transfer from two-year college to university: http://mntransfer.org)

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

Core Learning Outcomes and

Teaching Centers Suggest…or get involved in…the

conversation Get appointed to a key

committee Decide how your CTL Work Plan

can support efforts to:– Define goals and competencies– Disseminate and educate– Integrate goals into course and

curriculum goals– Help faculty with assessment

Ask faculty and administrative leadership to determine how the center can support coordinated, informed efforts across the institution.

Questions for Leadership

How can we begin to articulate common goals across the college or university—without creating new mandates?– 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.”

How can upcoming accreditation processes encourage work in this area?

Benefits for Centers

A focus on student learning outcomes and helping faculty define, detail, and assess them can…– Give centers a core strategic

focus– Clarify the rationale for many

of our programs– Assist in institutional

development– Put us positively at the

center of efforts related to accreditation and accountability

Discussion: Let’s Talk About Us

1. Has your institution determined core student outcomes and competencies for your graduates? If yes, what are they? If no, will you be doing so? How can your Center help?

2. Do you have detailed descriptions that define each outcome? How can your Center help in the development of these?

3. How does information about your outcomes get communicated across campus: to faculty, staff, and current and incoming students?

4. How are the outcomes being integrated into all curricula? How can your Center support that integration?

5. How can your Center help faculty to better assess student achievement of these outcomes?