Portfolio Committee Minutes

Friday, October 27, 2000

Members present: Tim Carter (committee chair); Gwen Morgan, Linda Bean, Clarissa Willis, Connie Zimmer, Elizabeth Salmeri and Dana Garner (via conference call).

Absent: Becky Shopner and Scott Adams

The meeting was called to order by Committee Chair Tim Carter and a discussion of the Portfolio Evaluation Process initiated Spring 2000 was discussed. The written comments by the students involved in the process were divided into broad categories by Dr. Carter.

In general they are as follows: 101 total written comments; 53 negative comments about the portfolio process. Perceptions/comments were as follows: 17 students commented there was too much overlap in the process, 24 said it was a waste of time (of those 24 6 were from Arkansas Tech-Russellville and 18 were from University Center at Westark). Five (5) students commented that they felt that so much time was invested in the Portfolio they should have received some form of feedback. Two (2) students felt that the information for the case study was too difficult to obtain and four (4) students felt that the portfolio should be started earlier.

Some discussion followed as to other perceptions/concerns such as four comments by non-academic subject student interns (music, band, P.E.) that some of the tasks were not applicable to their area of discipline.

The committee discussed in detail the student perceptions and it was determined that revisions have been made and we have addressed student concerns in the following areas:

1. The directions for the portfolio have been modified and clarified.

2. Overlap between tasks has been dealt with in the revised instructions.

3. The Rubric will be helpful in the evaluation process.

The committee recommends that a dialogue begin with Dr. Annette Holeyfield to determine if the Portfolio required for all PE majors is applicable to the college of education portfolio requirement.

Gwen Morgan shared a chart that she compiled which rated the tasks of each portfolio and how each was rated by the Portfolio Team in the Spring. It was determined that Task 6 still needed some attention

It was determined that the same process used last spring (the committee worked in teams so that each member evaluated 10 portfolios selected at random) would also be used for the Fall, 2000 portfolios. She also indicated that we need to continuously be aware the frameworks must be integrated throughout our courses.

The committee will meet again on December 1, 2000 at 10:00 with the first agenda item being a discussion of the purpose of the portfolio.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 am.