EMERGING DIALOGUES IN ASSESSMENT

November 20, 2025

• Diondre L. Brown, M.S.Ed. in Educational Leadership
  Ph.D. Student, Evaluation, Statistics & Methodology
  University of Tennessee, Knoxville
  Department of Educational Leadership & Policy Studies

This article introduces the Mission-Gap Framework (MGF) as a reflective assessment tool designed to evaluate how undergraduates develop clarity of purpose and direction through their learning experiences. The framework moves beyond job acquisition metrics to assess the internal learning that drives meaningful career readiness: purpose, self-authorship, and contribution. It offers practitioners a qualitative model for assessing purpose-driven learning outcomes within advising, classrooms, and co-curricular programs. 

In higher education, career readiness is often assessed through external indicators such as employment outcomes, salary reports, or competency checklists. These markers, while valuable for accountability, rarely capture what students learn about themselves in the process of preparing for life beyond college. Many graduates can describe what they want to be but struggle to articulate what they want to do and why it matters. This work aligns with AALHE’s emphasis on advancing student learning assessment by translating reflection into evidence of developmental growth.

The National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE, 2023) define career readiness as “the attainment and demonstration of requisite competencies that broadly prepare college graduates for a successful transition into the workplace.” Although comprehensive, this definition reinforces a skills-based narrative where job acquisition becomes the ultimate indicator of success. Scholars have long noted that such externally oriented definitions overlook the internal, developmental dimensions of career formation (Arthur et al., 2005; Herr et al., 2021).

The Mission-Gap Framework (MGF) reframes career readiness as a site of learning assessment. Rather than measuring only skills or employment outcomes, the framework evaluates how students construct purpose, connect values to action, and articulate contribution. In doing so, it addresses a critical question for assessment practitioners: How do we measure internal learning, such as purpose, identity, and agency, within career development contexts?

This approach aligns with calls to advance student learning assessment in ways that are socially just, developmental, and practical (Colby & Sullivan, 2020). MGF operationalizes reflection as data, enabling practitioners to assess growth in meaning-making, not just market readiness.

The Mission-Gap Framework as a Learning Assessment Model

The MGF guides students through four reflection prompts that together form a holistic portrait of purpose-centered learning:

• Mission – a deeply personal, values-based intention for impact;
• Gap – a need in the world they feel called to address;
• Method – a way they plan to contribute, without relying on job titles or degrees;
• Reason – the broader societal significance of their intended contribution.

Each component produces rich qualitative data that can be systematically analyzed for evidence of growth in clarity, alignment, and authenticity. When used intentionally, these reflections can be coded or rubric-assessed to measure dimensions of student learning such as:

• Purpose Development – the ability to connect one’s values to action (Colby & Sullivan, 2020);
• Integrative Learning – the synthesis of academic knowledge and personal motivation (Baxter Magolda, 2009); and
• Civic Awareness – understanding one’s role in addressing social needs (Arthur et al., 2005).

This turns MGF from a philosophical framework into a formative and summative assessment model. Formatively, it provides immediate feedback that helps students deepen their understanding of self and purpose. Summatively, it allows educators to demonstrate developmental gains across cohorts or interventions.

Implementation and Early Findings

The Mission-Gap Framework has been piloted in career-development workshops, classroom reflections, and one-on-one coaching sessions with undergraduate students at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Each implementation uses a three-phase reflective process called The Process (Brown, 2025):

1. Foundation – students articulate initial missions and identify personal values;
2. Direction – students analyze social or community “gaps” that connect to their mission; and
3. Contribution – students craft integrated mission statements using the formula:
   I want to [Mission] by/through [Method] because [Reason].

In these pilots, students complete pre- and post-reflections that are analyzed using a developmental rubric assessing three learning outcomes: clarity, connection, and contribution.

• Clarity reflects the precision with which students define their mission and values.
• Connection captures how effectively they link academic learning and personal experiences to a societal need.
• Contribution evaluates their articulation of methods and reasons for action.

Qualitative coding revealed patterns of developmental growth across all dimensions. Early reflections often relied on external identities (“I want to be a doctor”) or institutional scripts (“I want to help people”). By the post-reflection, many students shifted toward value-driven statements that reflected deeper self-authorship and integrative thinking (Baxter Magolda, 2009).

One student wrote:

“I always thought I wanted to be a doctor, but what I really care about is reducing health disparities in rural communities.”

This movement, from title-based aspiration to purpose-based mission, illustrates measurable growth in reflective learning. It demonstrates that assessment of purpose is not abstract; it can be made visible and analyzable through structured qualitative evidence.

Linking to Broader Assessment Practice

The Mission-Gap Framework supports multiple layers of learning assessment within institutions:

1. Course-Level Assessment – Faculty can embed MGF prompts into reflective assignments or e-portfolios, assessing student growth using rubrics aligned with AAC&U VALUE rubrics such as Integrative Learning and Personal and Social Responsibility (Colby & Sullivan, 2020).
2. Program-Level Assessment – Career centers and student-success offices can use aggregated data from student reflections to evaluate the developmental effectiveness of programming (Herr et al., 2021).
3. Institutional Assessment – MGF offers a way to complement quantitative data (e.g., placement rates) with qualitative insights about how students make meaning of their education (Arthur et al., 2005).

This framework thus bridges the gap between academic learning and life design. By translating reflective writing into assessable outcomes, MGF empowers institutions to document holistic learning, evidence that students are not only employable but also purposeful and self-aware contributors to society.

Equity and Cultural Responsiveness in Assessment

A key strength of the MGF lies in its flexibility and inclusivity. Because it invites students to define “mission” and “contribution” in their own terms, it honors diverse cultural, social, and faith-based worldviews (Colby & Sullivan, 2020). This aligns with calls for culturally responsive assessment that values multiple ways of knowing and being.

Rather than imposing a singular definition of success, MGF foregrounds voice and agency, particularly for students whose lived experiences have been marginalized by traditional metrics. For instance, a first-generation student might describe a mission rooted in community advancement, while another student might frame their mission through environmental stewardship or social entrepreneurship. Both can be equally valid forms of assessed learning when evaluated for clarity, connection, and contribution.

In this way, the MGF advances socially just assessment by emphasizing narrative, identity, and agency as legitimate data sources. It reinforces that equity in assessment is not only about inclusion in measurement but also inclusion in meaning-making.

Practical Implications for Practitioners

Assessment professionals seeking to integrate the Mission-Gap Framework can begin with three practical steps:

1. Embed Reflection Prompts – Incorporate MGF prompts into end-of-course reflections, first-year seminars, or co-curricular experiences.
2. Develop a Rubric – Create a simple rubric (1–4 scale) assessing clarity, connection, and contribution (Brown, 2025).
3. Close the Loop – Share results with students through feedback sessions, illustrating how their reflections demonstrate growth and align with learning outcomes.

When used iteratively, these steps cultivate a feedback-rich learning environment where reflection is both a learning process and an assessment tool. They also strengthen collaboration between academic and student affairs, linking personal development to institutional learning goals.

Conclusion

As higher education continues to redefine what it means to prepare students for life beyond college, assessment must move beyond external benchmarks to capture internal learning, values, purpose, and clarity of direction. The Mission-Gap Framework provides a concrete, inclusive, and assessment-driven method for doing so. By treating reflection as data, it allows educators to see and measure how students author their purpose through learning. Ultimately, this framework helps institutions demonstrate that true readiness is not just about being hired, it’s about being formed. Purpose is a learning outcome, and assessment can make that outcome visible. In this way, the Mission-Gap Framework contributes to ongoing dialogues within AALHE about the role of qualitative and reflective data in assessing student learning.