Gathering Evidence Team Minutes (LET) Tuesday, Sept. 28, 2005 East Campus, 3-113 Present: Linda Anthon, Maryke Lee, Melissa Pedone, Julie Phelps The team explored many ideas and options for engaging faculty and gathering evidence. After much debate we settled on the following basic structure. Gather Evidence Analyze Artifacts Workshop Results Rationale The team was concerned with gathering baseline evidence of THINK. If we workshop and develop activities to “prime the pump” this year, we will not get an accurate view of THINK as it is now at Valencia. This may cause problems with future THINK years and comparisons. Our decision was to focus our energy this fall on collecting work from willing faculty to have an adequate supply of student evidence for spring evaluation. Also, we thought it was important to acknowledge that many faculty have worked for years to develop THINK in their classes so we should not approach this project as if none of this work is already happening. Detailed Strategy Note: A five-contact approach is used because research indicates this maximizes response rates. 1) Letters sent out to all FT faculty from Kaye/Sandy announcing the collection of student work for THINK analysis. This letter should be sent out in hard copy and electronically. (first contact) 2) Email sent out to all faculty asking for them to submit class sets of critical thinking work with description of assignment. (second contact) Important Note: we will have to work out a collection system that will make it as painless to participate as possible if we want wide participation. 3) Call every FT faculty member who does not respond to the initial email and invite them to participate. (third contact) There are approximately 320 FT faculty and we felt we could reasonably do this with a few members of the LET. 4) Follow-up email reminding faculty about the process for contributing student work. (fourth contact) 5) “Last chance” flyer in faculty mailboxes at the end of the semester (maybe the start of spring??) to get end-of-semester project submissions for analysis. (fifth contact) 6) REWARD those faculty who submit work. Food, book, public recognition, etc. 7) Analysis of student artifacts by scoring teams. We recommend two types of analysis if possible. First, interdisciplinary teams should complete the holistic scoring for institutional reporting. Second, discipline specific teams should use the analytic rubric to provide specific feedback to deans, program directors, and faculty. 8) Plan a series of workshops for faculty, deans, and program directors to engage in discussions about the results and planning for the future. 9) Future gathering evidence processes should include ways to pull student work directly from the electronic portfolio.