To Members of the TBL Listserv,
I'm taking this opportunity to thank you all for your contributions to
this discussion and to specifically thank Derek for his very insightful
and thoughtful analysis. I think it is right on the mark.
Larry
Larry K. Michaelsen
Professor of Management
Dockery 400G
Central Missouri State University
Warrensburg, MO 64093
O: 660 543-4124
F: 660 543-8465
>>> "Derek R. Lane" <[log in to unmask]> - 1/31/05 11:18 PM >>>
Members of the TBL Listserv:
Thanks to all of you who have been posting to the TBL listserv. Your
experiences and concerns certainly have me thinking. I've been using
TBL
for over 10 years and have been relatively successful with the
instructional strategy. However, when my colleagues (or my doctoral
students) have attempted to use TBL in their classes, their results
have
not always been as positive. I would like to suggest (as I have with
my
colleages) that the negative experiences and student resistance related
to
TBL may actually be a function of how TBL is executed.
As several of you have articulated, students in TBL courses learn more,
are
much more prepared, and are more able to engage in life-long
learning. Students need to understand that they are not "learning it
all
on their own." Student complaints can be minimized when students know
that
the course is relevant, the instructor is credible, and that what they
are
learning ultimately matters. Let me explain.
Prior to taking graduate classes with Larry Michaelsen in the early
1990s I
had attempted to use small groups in my teaching with horrible results.
I
had read several of the studies by Johnson and Johnson about the
implementation of cooperative learning strategies but when I tried to
replicate their results, I failed. When I was introduced to TBL (as
a
collaborative learning strategy) I was amazed at the extent to which
Larry
Michaelsen was able to make students accountable for reading course
materials (we read three books BEFORE the class met for the first
night)
and was able to maintain a high level of discussion and interaction
throughout the semester about course concepts and how they are
actually
used. I tested TBL in my doctoral dissertation, I was able to
conclude
that TBL is an effective strategy for dramatically enhancing student
learning. However, there are several issues related to the instructor
and
the execution of the Instructional Activity Sequence (IAS) that
moderate
student success. One of the primary issues relates to instructor
competence with course materials and comfort with TBL. While content
mastery does not seem to be an issue for those of you who have
frequently
posted to this listserv, it is important to note three conditions
under
which TBL should not be used.
After working with several graduate students, colleagues in my
department
and across the campus, and faculty at other universities, I have
discovered
three conditions under which TBL should not be employed:
1) if the instructor does not have a mastery of the content;
2) if the instructor does not know how s/he wants the students to USE
the
content; and
3) if the instructor is not willing to shift their role from "dispenser
of
knowledge" to "course designer and manager of overall instructional
processes."
I am confident that those of you using TBL and posting to this listserv
ARE
content specialists, KNOW how you want your students to apply the
content
knowledge (though there may be considerable variance in how the
application-oriented activities are designed and implemented so that
students enjoy the process) and are COMFORTABLE with your "guide on
the
side" role (as opposed to being the "sage on the stage").
I would like to suggest that student resistance (challenge behavior) is
a
natural consequence of group dynamics. That is, when students are
arranged
in small groups, challenge behavior increases because there is strength
in
numbers and students will ask questions (and challenge the instructor)
in a
group when they wouldn't as separate individuals. As challenge
behavior
increases, class interaction also increases. The key to managing
challenge
behavior is to use positive and productive strategies which encourage
student "buy-in" and simultaneously establish instructor credibility.
If
students believe they are "teaching themselves" they will become
increasingly frustrated by the process.
TBL is designed as an interactive strategy. Unfortunately, I have
seen
several instances where instructors have simply replaced their
lectures
with a series of tests (IRATS and TRATS) without allowing students the
opportunity to adequately engage the content and apply it in
meaningful
ways. The IAS should never replace the instructor.
If we essentialize the content and make students responsible for the
"table
of contents" as opposed to the "index" of the content they read as part
of
their individual study, they will be ready to USE and APPLY the
content.
The IAS allows us to determine what students already know, what they
are
unclear about, and what they still need to learn in order to be able to
USE
the content appropriately. Even graduate students require guidance
and
clarification--especially when the course readings are dense or
unclear. Furthermore, TBL instructors/coordinators need to establish
their credibility so that students will not feel like they are
teaching
themselves There is a line in the movie Good Will Hunting that is
sarcastically spoken by Matt Damon as Will Hunting to a Harvard
graduate
student that summarizes how some students feel about teaching
themselves :
.. . . you dropped a hundred and fifty grand on an education you
coulda'
picked up for a dollar fifty in late charges at the Public Library.
We don't want students in any of our classes to feel this way. In
fact,
I'll contend that when TBL is working, students are genuinely enjoying
the
process of working in groups and engaging in application-oriented
activities. TBL instructors need to establish credibility (through
min-lectures and guided questions) as content experts and allow
students
several opportunities to engage and apply the content in enjoyable
ways. Let them have fun with the content! What students DO with the
content is as important as the content itself. As we establish
credibility
with our students, they learn that they are not "on their own" and
that
there is "value-added" because we are guiding the instructional
process. In a previous post I suggested that there are three specific
times during the IAS where "mini-lectures" are appropriate and help us
establish credibility and enhance student learning:
1) After the group appeals--during the specified Instructor Feedback
time. My lectures are usually no longer than 15 minutes. It's what I
refer to as "value-added" content that goes beyond the preliminary
readings
and provides evidence of my expertise and frames examples so that
students
begin synthesizing the content.
2) During the application-oriented activities -- There is a nice
literature
in educational psychology regarding "Just In Time Learning." There
will be
times when the students will require additional clarification or
examples. Rather than repeat the content to each individual group,
I'll do
a quick 5 minute lecture to clarify some of the major issues.
3) BEFORE the individual test. Asking students questions (and
allowing
them to ask me clarification questions) gives me an opportunity to
prime
student thinking about the essentials of the readings in terms of the
"Table of Contents" and NOT the "Index." Asking questions before the
IRAT
also allows the professor the opportunity to establish credibility and
to
demonstrate to the students that they do not "have to teach
themselves."
For me, the content of the instructor feedback is framed by three
sources: 1) Content that students were unclear about from the RATS.
(I
use a scantron machine to score the IRATs and have recently
implemented
IF-AT forms for the TRATs ; 2) Additional content (that goes beyond
the
course content the students reviewed during the Individual Study); and
3)
specific connections I want them to make among the concepts.
Students in TBL courses learn more, are much more prepared, and are
more
able to engage in life-long learning. They just need to understand
that
they are not "doing it on their own." Student complaints can be
minimized
when students know that the course is relevant, that the instructor is
credible, and that what they are learning ultimately matters.
My two cents.
-Derek
Derek R. Lane
Associate Professor
University of Kentucky
At 10:02 PM 1/30/2005, Lindsay Davidson wrote:
>I'm interested in your post as I just read the narrative feedback from
the
>52 students (52%) in my first year Medicine Musculoskeletal course
after
>my first foray into TBL over the past 4 weeks. My impression (and
that of
>several of my colleagues who team-taught the group) was that the
students
>were much more prepared than previous years and that we were able to
>develop topics well with in class team work. The overall impression
of
>the teachers was that this was a class who asked insightful questions
and
>was enjoying the material and appreciating it at a higher level than
>previous years. However clearly a proportion of the class feels some
>combination of indignation, frustration and general distaste for the
>process. As for "hate the teacher" in my case it's "hate the
>coordinator". Fortunately, my UG dean is very supportive, and
petition or
>no, our school is looking for a way to reduce traditional lectures
whether
>the students realize it or not. Experienced TBL teachers: is this
>common? any good ideas on how to handle this sort of experience?
>
>Lindsay Davidson
>Queen's University
>Kingston, Ontario
|
