The TLT Group

 Advisory Council
for the TLT Group

THIRD MEETING OF THE TLT GROUP’S ADVISORY COUNCIL – 2/7/2006  5-6PM Eastern
 

I.     Report of Gatherings
II.   Co-sponsor options
III.  Pairings within Clothing the Emperor
IV.  Structure for substantive discussion re: Use of Evidence
 

Use of evidence to improve decision-making is of increasingly wide concern within higher education.

[And beyond!  note recent public discussions of truth, lying, access to information, etc.]

We want to work with others to understand better both the power and the limitations of evidence.  We use the term “evidence” because it encompasses a broad range of legitimate possibilities – from highly quantitative to highly impressionistic to anecdotal.    We hope to help people find the kinds of evidence and ways of obtaining it that are most likely to influence subsequent actions and decisions. – the ways of obtaining evidence that are least burdensome and least likely to produce misleading results.   

We want to explore how the use of evidence interacts with other important influences and priorities on policies and decisions.  We want to learn how evidence can be made most usefully accessible to those who might be influenced by it and/or able to act on it. 

We want to help people recognize the conditions under which certain kinds of evidence are most useful and under which they are truly irrelevant.

The TLT Group has long been quite active in this area through our Flashlight Program.  See, for example, some of our related subscriber benefits at: 
http://www.tltgroup.org/subscription/Matls-II.htm  - includes a new web-based Flashlight Online survey service.
We also offer Online Institute workshops on Student Course Evaluation, Assessment, Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, etc.

What is your organization already doing in this area? What might we do together?

·         What are the more specific topics suggested by this theme that would be of most interest to your constituents? 

·         How do these issues apply to the work of your organization?  

·         Is there a specific evidence-related issue that you hope we might explore or develop together?

More below…

***

We are also developing a framework for structuring many of our online sessions, especially our “Clothing the Emperor” series.   This framework has 5 parts, of which the 4th is “Evidence  and Priorities”: 

I.  Anti-inflammatory Description 

Describe the issues in the least inflammatory language.  Identify important pre-requisites, conditions, stakeholders. 

Why bother - under what conditions?  Who cares?

 II.  Polarizing Views or Questions 

Restate extreme positions and provocative questions in ways most likely to enable stakeholders who are initially committed to apparently opposing views to engage in civil, constructive discussion.

III.  Worthwhile Results
List desirable, feasible outcomes of participating in activities for this issue. 

IV.  Evidence and Priorities 

Identify the kinds of evidence that can be made accessible and useful to participants.  What other factors matter? 

E.g., what priorities might modify the influence of evidence on important decisions about this issue?
V.  What do YOU care about most?   Personally, professionally, ...?
What do you most want to gain? [Regain?]
For your students? colleagues? institution? yourself? family and friends?
What do you most cherish and want not to lose?

 

For more detail from this framework as applied to an online session about “Peer Review of Teaching for Online, Hybrid/Blended,  and Even Traditional Courses!” see the excerpt below which is taken from:

http://www.tltgroup.org/clothingtheemperor/course-peer-review.htm

 

Generic Questions

1.  What evidence is already available and likely to help make relevant decisions?

2.  What kinds of additional evidence would be likely to help make relevant decisions?

3.  Why are people unlikely to be influenced by apparently relevant evidence?  What other factors are likely to influence relevant decisions?

4.  What priorities (institutional, personal, ...) might make some kinds of evidence irrelevant?  might influence the impact of evidence?