The Multi-State Collaborative (MSC) was formerly sponsored by the State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) and the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). The Multi-State Collaborative is an initiative designed to provide meaningful evidence about how well students are achieving important learning outcomes, i.e., written communications, critical thinking, and quantitative literacy in public higher education
The MSC has been subsumed by the VALUE Institute co-sponsored by the AAC&U and Indiana University’s Center for Postsecondary Research. The VALUE Institute includes both public and private institutions who pay a participation fee. The MSC continues as a consortium of public institutions within the VALUE Institute.
Under the VALUE Institute and the MSC assessment model, student learning is is assessed against specific Essential Learning Outcomes developed by faculty under the auspices of AAC&U’s LEAP initiative. Applying the associated VALUE Rubrics, already in use at a growing number of colleges and universities, to assess actual student assignments and work products provides evidence of authentic class-based learning and program-based teaching that, in turn, enables faculty and programs to improve student learning through curricular changes, course design, and more effective teaching. Moving beyond the institution, the assessment model explores the feasibility of using this same evidence of student learning, carefully analyzed and de-identified, to inform state legislators and other interested parties about the focus and quality of student learning in the context of the mission of an institution.
Thirteen states—Connecticut, Indiana, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, and Virginia—are currently involved in the MSC.
All annual reports contain recommendations for action derived from the data that has and will continue to be shared with key stakeholders and acted upon.
This report includes a presentation of statewide assessment approaches, and represents a comparison of the following:
This report includes matched samples of a comparison of the same participating institutions in 2016 to the same participating institutions in 2017 (i.e., apple to apple comparison).
This presentation simply reports on the data for that year as there was no prior statewide data with which to compare.