Student learning outcomes are statements that describe what students will know or be able to do or demonstrate as a result of completing courses within a program. The MGCCC faculty who teach courses in our academic, career, technical and health science programs are responsible for developing and assessing the core general education and program-specific student learning outcomes.
When developing Student Learning Outcomes statements, these statements should be:
- Consistent with the instructional program mission and goals
- Focused on student learning- Not teaching or some other aspect of the program
- Clearly stated
- Realistic- Can potentially be achieved by a significant portion of students
- Actionable – Can be used to continually improve the program
General Education Student Learning Outcomes
The five general education student learning outcomes that all instructional programs are responsible for assessing include critical thinking, mathematical problem solving, oral communication, written communication, and application to technology.
♦ Written Communication – The institution defines effective communication as the ability to use the conventions of standard written English in structure, strategy, organization and style.
♦ Mathematical Problem Solving – The institution defines mathematical problem solving as the ability to know basic concepts and to apply appropriate mathematical skills to solve problems.
♦ Oral Communication – The institution defines effective oral communication as the process of creating a central idea and purpose, using an appropriate organizational pattern for the communication purpose, presenting in appropriate verbal and nonverbal, and adopting to the audience and context.
♦ Critical Thinking – The institution defines critical thinking as consisting of active mental processes that lead to the discernment, analysis, evaluation, interpretation, and application of information in problem solving. The purpose of critical thought can be to reach a solution or to obtain a judgement based on careful reflection.
♦ Application to Technology – The institution expects graduates to be able to utilize the software that is appropriate for their academic coursework. This includes, but is not limited to, file management, use of e-mail, word processing, spreadsheets, and software applications.
Program-Specific Student Learning Outcomes
The MGCCC faculty have the autonomy to develop Program-Specific Student Learning Outcomes that are unique to their program. The data collected should be used to drive continual improvement and optimize student learning in the course or program.
Reporting Template & Online Student Learning Outcome Submission Form
At the end of the academic year, the MGCCC faculty are asked to submit an Online Student Learning Outcome Form for every instructional program and supply the following pieces of information:
Components of the Student Learning Outcomes Reporting Template
5 General Student Learning Outcome Statements + Program-Specific Statements
- Student Learning Outcome Statement – Each program should report 5 General Education SLO statements + Program-Specific SLO statements
- Expected Outcome
- Assessment Instrument
- Student Type That Was Assessed – Online vs Traditional/Hybrid
- Number of Students Who Were Assessed
- Number of Students Who Successfully Met the Expected Outcome
- Use of Results – Make a meaningful analysis of the data and identify how you are going to use the results to improve student learning outcomes. Assess the extent to which each statement achieves these outcomes and provide evidence of improvement based on the analysis of the results.
Timothy S. Brophy – The Basics of Student Learning Outcomes Assessment
Timothy S. Brophy. (2014) The Basics of Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Online Training Module. Director of Institutional Assessment at the University of Florida.
Timothy S. Brophy. (2014) A Guide for Writing Student Learning Outcomes. Director of Institutional Assessment at the University of Florida.
A Guide for Writing Student Learning Outcomes
— Adelman, C., Ewell, P., Gaston, P., & Schneider, C. G. (2011, January) The degree qualifications profile. Indianapolis, IN: Lumina Foundation
— Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., & Cruikshank, K. A. (2000). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. London, England: Pearson.
— Association of American Colleges & Universities. (2010). Essential learning outcomes. Washington, DC: Author. Available online: http://www.aacu.org/leap/vision.cfm
— Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
— Barkley, E. F., & Major, C. H. (2016). Learning assessment techniques: A handbook for college faculty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
— Carnevale, A. P., Smith, N., & Strohl, J. (2013, June). Recovery: Job growth and education requirements through 2020. Washington, DC: Georgetown University, Georgetown Public Policy Institute, Center on Education and the Workforce.
— Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (2009). Learning and leading with habits of mind: 16 essential characteristics for success. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
— Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
— Gallup, Inc. (2014, February 25). The 2013 Lumina study of the American public’s opinion on higher education and U.S. business leaders poll on higher education: What America needs to know about higher education redesign. Omaha, NE: Author.
— Hart Research Associates. (2013, April 10. It takes more than a major: Employer priorities for college learning and success. Retrieved fromhttp://www.aacu.org/leap/documents/2013_EmployerSurvey.pdf
— Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (2008). Designing and assessing educational objectives: Applying the new taxonomy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
— Quality Matters Program. (2011). Quality Matters rubric workbook for higher education. Annapolis, MD: MarylandOnline, Inc.
— Sharp, M. D., Komives, S. R., & Fincher, J. (2011). Learning outcomes in academic disciplines: Identifying common ground. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 48(4), 481-504. doi: 10.2202/1949-6605.6246
— Shulman, L. S. (2007). Counting and recounting: Assessment and the quest for accountability. Change, 39(1), 20-25.
— Suskie, L. (2014). Five dimensions of quality: A common sense guide to accreditation and accountability. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
— Suskie, L. (In press). Assessing student learning: A common sense guide (3nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
— Walvoord, B. E., & Anderson, V. J. (2010). Effective grading: A tool for learning and assessment in college (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
— Wiseman, P. (2013, June 24). Seeking soft skills: Employers want graduates who can communicate, think fast, work in teams. Star Tribune. Retrieved from