Present: Kira Bishop, Ann Puyana, Pat Nellis, Melissa Pedone, Allison Sloan, Maryke Lee,
Philip Bishop, Emily Hooker and Roberta Vandermast
Regrets: Linda Anthon, Nick Bekas and Helen Clarke
Session Objectives:
1. Refresh our understanding of our charge.
2. Agree on a decision-making process for this team.
3. Discuss and make revisions to our Think Project Plan.
Our Charge
The work team reviewed the charge to the LET and the goals and purposes of the Think
Project Plan (as defined by the LET in September 2004) in order to clarify our understanding of our work and our proposed project.
Decision-making Process for the Think Project Work Team
The team discussed the need for a process of decision-making that would allow for the work of the team to progress. The team approved the following decision-making process:
1. The goal of the team is consensus whenever possible. Consensus means that all active members agree on our work products. (Active members are those who are committed to the work of the time by investing their time and presence at meetings; that is, they come to most meetings and contribute to the work products.)
2. When consensus is not possible, the majority will rule.
3. While criticism is valued in planning and revising work, criticism should be focused on moving the work of the group forward.
4. Once made, decisions will not be revisited unless there is consensus that those decisions are blocking forward progress.
5. Discussions within the work team are privileged and should not be shared with those outside the team unless permission is sought and given.
6. When either the consensus or the majority puts forward a work product, the commitment of each member of the team to the work of the group will be expressed by showing support for the product.
The team discussed the responsibilities of LET membership as defined by the LET.
Revised Think Project Plan
The team felt that this project was necessary to assist the LET in fulfilling its charge. It was noted that this project is one of several necessary first steps in "creating a coordinated program of learning centering on our core competencies" (LET Charge) and collecting evidence of student learning (LET Charge). Revisions to the Think Project Plan were discussed and the following items were agreed upon:
 It was decided to continue using the term "rubric" since that term is established in the scholarly literature of assessment.

It was decided to scale back the project to 20 faculty members attending a 3-hour session in order to give critical analysis of the current iteration of the Institutional

Rubric of Critical Thinking Indicators. Volunteers will attend a workshop on Friday,
May 13th from 1:00-4:00pm (location TBA). Each volunteer will receive a $100 stipend for her/his work.
 Faculty volunteers will be asked to answer the question, "How is our current draft of an Institutional Rubric of Critical Thinking Indicators a useful iteration of the Think
Indicators from the Valencia Catalog?" Faculty will examine the usefulness of both the indicators and the levels. Suggestions from this group will be used in revising this rubric.
 To assist in answering this question, prompts and samples of student work involving critical thinking will be examined. Members of the Think Project Work Team will supply these samples.
 If more than 20 faculty volunteer, selection will be made on the basis of discipline and campus distribution.
 This project will be only the first of many times when faculty and others will have input on this rubric.
It was noted that these changes accommodated all criticism brought forward from the previous LET meeting, except for idea that the LET should have its own workshop similar to the one described above. It was suggested that a workshop for the LET be scheduled.
These revisions will be presented to the LET and are in accordance with the charge to the
LET Think Project Work Team.
Also Discussed:
 The need to step back from course outcomes and to facilitate the discussion of more general outcomes and indicators of core competencies.
 The need for courses and disciplines to contribute to the discussion and assessment of more general outcomes and indicators of core competencies.

The need to make explicit the implicit relationship between rubrics, prompts and performance.
 The size of an effective sample and best ways to collect it.

The need to emulate the most effective models of assessment, especially Winona State and Mesa Community College.
 Ownership of institutional data.
 Use of standardized tests as measures of assessment.

The need for multi-layered discussions of rubrics and assessment in multiple contexts throughout the college.
For Future Agendas:
 Should we use a standardized test to initiate conversations on assessment of critical thinking?
 What evidence would we collect one year from now to show evidence of Think?

Is course mapping one way to open conversations on assessment?
 What types of discussions would be characteristic of multi-layered discussions of rubrics and assessment? In what context should they be offered? In what time frames?
Next full LET Meeting
Wednesday, March 30, 2004, 2:30 pm
– 4:30 pm
Osceola Campus, 2-223