View AASCU members

Core Educational Outcomes Taskforces

Voluntary System of Accountability Template (v.5, PDF)
Chair Jolene Koester President California State University-Northridge
  Samuel Agronow Coordinator, Admissions Research & Evaluation University of California, Office of the President
  Trudy Banta Senior Advisor to the Chancellor for Academic Planning and Evaluation Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
  W. David Conn Vice Provost for Academic Programs and Undergraduate Education California Polytechnic State University
  Kathryn Doherty Assistant Vice President for Assessment and Institutional Academic Planning Towson University
  Michael Fiorentino Provost & Vice President, Academic Affairs Fitchburg State College
  Doris Helms Provost Clemson University
  Lynn Mahoney Vice President and Assoc. Provost Purchase College, SUNY
  Mark McNamee University Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs Virginia Tech
  Gary Miller Vice President for Academic Affairs and Research Wichita State University
  Debra Stuart Vice Chancellor for Administration Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education
  Dave Veazey Asst. VP Academic Affairs University of Alaska


Task Force Charge
State and federal policy makers and student or parent consumers of higher education services are increasingly calling for higher education to demonstrate what it says it delivers. While any long-term professional in higher education concludes, based on her or his experience, that it adds value in terms of student learning and student growth, the academy has not been able to effectively demonstrate and communicate this value added effect in a credible fashion to many in the above audiences. The charge to this task force is part of the development of a larger system of accountability that also seeks to provide answers to concerns about student engagement and consumer level information about pricing and the availability of services.

The Core Educational Outcomes Taskforce is charged to focus on how the academy can develop useful and credible evidence of the value that higher education adds for its students in terms of core educational learning outcomes and student growth outcomes.

The former will become a standard part of VSA and the latter will be an optional part of VSAif it is found workable and acceptable. Student Growth Outcomes are not part of the design for VSA but are thought by many to be important. This Technical Work Group will be probing the feasibility of measuring student growth to be considered for the future or as an optional part of public reporting.

The purpose of this evidence is two-fold. First, it should be capable of convincing the current skeptical audiences that what is measured really amounts to the addition of important value for a student. Second, the evidence provided must facilitate comparison of institutions. Third, it should be reliably useful in helping higher education institutions go about making programmatic improvement.

The Core Educational Outcomes Taskforce will receive input from two technical work groups, each working on one of the two types of learning outcomes described below. The reports of the technical work groups will be advisory to this taskforce, but will be based on substantial review of the literature and advice from experts in the field. The technical work groups are intended to aid the taskforce and shorten the time required to complete its work.



Technical Work Group Charges
For core educational learning outcomes:

1. Identify a small number of Educational Outcome Assessment Instruments, one of which each university electing to become part of VSA must use, keeping in mind the requirement of facilitating comparison. To that end, consider:

    a. The availability of the assessment instruments to higher education institutions,

    b. Whether the identified instruments arguably measure improved student abilities in critical thinking, analytical reasoning and written communication.

    c. Whether the instrument’s scores can be convertible (at summary, sub score or both levels) via a cross walk into the score(s) on the other instruments selected.

    d. Whether the instruments selected are technically capable, as a group, of measuring the increased levels of core learning students obtain at colleges and universities that range in their admissions practices from nonselective to highly selective.

    e. Whether the instruments selected, as a group, measure the range of core learning outcomes that reflect the core learning missions of most NASULGC and AASCU institutions and that these institutions have the capability of administering such assessments.

    f. Whether each instrument identified is susceptible to being used to produce value-added measurements of core learning outcomes.

    g. We need the task force to ensure that the following national instruments be included in their analyses: the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA), the Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress (MAPP), the Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP) and the Graduate Record Examination (GRE).


2. Select a standard method of using each of the instruments selected to produce value-added measures of core learning. The selection should be sensitive to the diversity among institutional missions and the diversity of students attending institutions.

3. Specify the selection procedure to be used by VSA campuses to select a random sample of students to which the instrument will be administered when a campus chooses to utilize a sample of students rather than assess the universe of students.

4. Provide campuses guidance as to what each instrument selected actually measures to aid campuses in selecting the test that best fits their campus’ core educational mission as well as warnings about what the instruments do not measure.

5. Recommend the maximum interval between administrations of the core outcomes measurement for VSA participants. Should the instruments be administered annually, every other year, or some other frequency?

6. Develop uniform reporting formats for the value-added results of the identified assessment instruments.


For student growth outcomes:

The NASULGC paper on development of a VSA does not address the development of protocols for reporting on student growth outcomes. The work of this technical work group will be an optional part of the VSA recommended but not required of institutions for adoption and participation.

1. Develop a list of student growth domains that all VSA participating institutions should assess and demonstrate value added.

2. Identify a small number of Student Growth Assessment Instruments, one of which each university electing to become part of VSA may use, keeping in mind the requirement of facilitating comparison. To that end, consider:
    a. The availability of the assessment instruments to higher education institutions,

    b. Whether the identified instruments arguably measure student growth in the identified domains of assessment.

    c. Whether the instrument’s scores can be convertible (at summary, sub score or both levels) via a cross walk into the score(s) on the other instruments selected.

    d. Whether the instruments selected are technically capable, as a group, of measuring the increased levels of the growth that students obtain at colleges and universities that range in their admissions practices from nonselective to highly selective.

    e. Whether the instruments selected, as a group, measure the range of student growth outcomes that reflect the learning missions of most NASULGC and AASCU institutions and that these institutions have the capability of administering such assessments.

    f. Whether each instrument identified is susceptible to being used to produce value-added measurements of student growth outcomes.
3. Select a standard method of using each of the instruments selected to produce value-added measures of student growth.

4. Specify the selection procedure to be used by VSA campuses to select a random sample of students to which the test will be administered when a campus chooses to utilize a sample of students rather than assess the universe of students.

5. Provide campuses guidance as to what each instrument selected actually measures to aid campuses in selecting the instrument that best fits their campus’ core educational mission as well as warnings about what the instruments do not measure.

6. Recommend the maximum interval between administrations of the student growth outcomes measurement for VSA participants. Should the instruments be administered annually, every other year, or some other frequency?

7. Develop uniform reporting formats for the value-added results of the identified assessment instruments.