If you reply to this long (20 kB) post please don't hit the reply
button unless you prune the copy of this post that may appear in your
reply down to a few relevant lines, otherwise the entire already
archived post may be needlessly resent to subscribers.
*****************************************
ABSTRACT: In a previous post "Re: Active Learning in Medicine" I
discussed the implementation of Team-Based Learning (TBL) at the
Singapore branch of the Duke Medical School. In a later post I posed
five questions for subscribers to the TeamLearning list, and Bill
Goffe posed another question "Compare TBL with physicists' use of
conceptests." Goffe's answer indicated both similarities and
differences. Here I reference the online responses of TeamLearning
subscribers to two of my questions: "What evidence supports the
assertion that the first class undergoing TBL did extraordinarily
well"; and "What's the difference between TBL and PBL?" As for
another question: "Has the effectiveness of TBL and PBL in promoting
student learning been evaluated by pre/post testing?" as far as I
know, the answer is "No" for TBL and "Yes" for PBL (evidently only
one evaluation due to Barbara Williams of the University of
Delaware.) I suggest that just as physics education research (PER)
may have something to learn from TBL and medical education, so TBL
and medical education may have something to learn from PER.
*****************************************
In post "Re: Active Learning in Medicine" [Hake (2009a)] I discussed
Sonia Kolesnikov-Jessop's (2009) NYT report "Team Program Is an
Experiment in Active Learning" regarding Team- Based Learning (TBL)
as instituted at the Singapore branch of the Duke Medical School. In
a later post "Re: TBL in the NY Times, Five Questions" [Hake
(2009b)], I posed five questions for subscribers to the TeamLearning
list [bracketed by lines "HHHHH. . . ."; slightly edited]:
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
1. Any comments or suggestions regarding my post "Re: Active Learning
in Medicine" [Hake (2009a)]?
2. Does anyone know what evidence supports vice dean of education
Kamei's statement "Our first class did extraordinarily well using
this method" as quoted by Kolesnikov-Jessop (2009)?
3. What's the difference between TBL (Team-Based Learning) and PBL
(Problem-Based Learning)?
4. Has the effectiveness of TBL and PBL in promoting student learning
been evaluated by pre/post testing?
5. Can anyone recommend good online references to the use of TBL in physics?
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Bill Goffe (2009), in his post "TBL and Conceptests" responded as
follows [bracketed by lines "GGGGG. . . . . "; my insert at ". . .
.[[insert]]. . . "; slightly edited].:
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
If I might, let me answer another question -- "briefly compare
team-based learning (TBL) and the use by physicists of conceptests"
. . . . [[another interesting question is "compare TBL with the
'Context-Rich Problems' method
<http://www.compadre.org/IntroPhys/items/detail.cfm?ID=98> of the
Minnesota Physics Education Research Group."]]. . . . .
As an economist, I've used TBL for two courses over the last academic
year (money & banking and intermediate macro theory) and I've read a
bit about conceptests. I've found the similarities quite striking.
Still, there are some significant differences that the different
communities might find useful (thus, I've posted this to both
PHYSLRNR and TEAMLEARNING-L listserves).
For TBL, see. . . .[[the TBL website at
<http://teambasedlearning.apsc.ubc.ca> and UBC (2009), both
referenced in Hake (2009a)]]. . . . . . . (the latter is a nice
short intro). For the use of conceptests, I have in mind what I read
in "Farewell, Lecture?". . . . .[[Mazur (2009)]. . . Both approaches
have students prepare ahead of class and in-class time is spent on
difficult questions. In both, lectures are used to clear up problems
that come up and are NOT used to present new material to students.
Here are some differences:
1. TBL IS GENERALLY MORE STRUCTURED:
a. teams of 5-7 students live the length of the semester;
b. the start of each unit of material (a few week's worth) starts
with a quiz that is taken first individually and then by teams
(preferably with "IF-AT" cards that give immediate feedback. . .
.[[as advertised at Epstein Educational Enterprises]]. . . . .
<http://www.epsteineducation.com/home/> ); this two-part approach
helps build teams and
provides incentives for students to be prepared;
c. ideally, the questions used in class satisfy the "4 S's:" a
Significant problem, all work on the Same problem, it offers a
Specific choice, and all teams report Simultaneously (if teams
report differently, the instructor uses questions to understand why).
2. CONCEPTESTS:
a. often developed by a profession (TBL instructors are pretty much
on their own it seems); it seems largely used in the sciences . . . .
[[as far as I know the term "conceptests" was coined by Eric Mazur
who gives many examples in his book "Peer instruction: A user's
manual" [Mazur (1997)]. A Google search for "conceptest X" (without
the quotes, where "X" = some discipline) yielded the following
numbers of hits (not all of them relevant) on 15 May 10:11:00-0700:
economics: 9,090; mathematics: 6,110; physics: 4,960; chemistry:
3,950; biology: 2,980; geoscience: 2,090; astronomy: 1,510. ]]
b. these questions might be based on in-depth studies of common
student preconceptions, which have been studied in a scholarly
fashion. . . .[[e.g., through the use of pre/post testing - for
references see Hake (2009a) - using valid and consistently reliable
tests of conceptual understanding developed through arduous
quantitative and qualitative research by disciplinary experts, as
pioneered by Halloun & Hestenes (1985a,b). A Google search for
["concept inventory" X] (with the quotes "....", but without the
brackets [.....] where "X" = some discipline) yielded the following
numbers of hits (not all of them relevant) on 15 May 10:30:00-0700:
physics: 10,100; engineering; 6,800; mathematics: 6,510; chemistry:
3,910; biology: 3,920; economics: 2,760; astronomy: 2640; geoscience:
842]]. . . . . . .
As above, the similarities are quite striking and the differences
pretty interesting. As best I can tell from following both the TBL
and PHYSLRNR listserves, neither is that knowledgeable about the
other. . . .[as is characteristic of the education field]. . . . "
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
Regarding three of the questions posed in Hake (2009a):
"2. Does anyone know what evidence supports Kamei's statement 'Our
first class did extraordinarily well using this method' as quoted by
Kolesnikov-Jessop (2009)?"
A thoughtful and detailed answer was posted on the TeamLearning list
by Sandy Cook (2009), Associate Dean for Curriculum at the Duke-NUS
Graduate Medical School Singapore. To access Cook's message click on
<http://tinyurl.com/o37lm3>.
"3. What's the difference between TBL (Team Based Learning) and PBL
(Problem Based Learning) ?
Answers to this question that indicated substantive differences were
posted on the TeamLearning list by Sandy Cook (2009), Michael Sweet
(2009), Dujeepa Samarasekera (2009), and Dee Fink (2009). Charles
Killingsworth (2009) wondered if anyone had done a comparison of TBL
with the 4MAT System of Teaching and Learning by Dr. Bernice McCarthy
<http://www.aboutlearning.com>.
"4. Has the effectiveness of TBL and PBL in promoting student
learning been evaluated by pre/post testing?"
There is at least one case where PBL has been evaluated by pre/post
testing. After posting Hake (2009a), I recalled that Barbara Williams
(2001) of the Univ. of Delaware has employed pre/post testing with
the Force Concept Inventory in a PBL physics course. But, as far as
I know, there have been no cases in which TBL has been so evaluated.
Just as physics education research (PER) may have something to learn
from TBL and medical education, so TBL and medical education may
have something to learn from PER - see e.g., "Bioliteracy and
Teaching Efficiency: What Biologists Can Learn from Physicists"
[Klymkowsky et al. (2003)] and "Where's the evidence that active
learning works?" [Michael (2006)].
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands.
<[log in to unmask]>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/>
<http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com/>
REFERENCES [Tiny URL's courtesy <http://tinyurl.com/create.php>.
NOTE: To access the the archives of PhysLnR [TeamLearning] one needs
to subscribe, but that takes only a few minutes by clicking on
<http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/physlrnr.html>
[<http://list.olt.ubc.ca/cgi-bin/wa?A0=TEAMLEARNING-L>] and then
clicking on "Join or leave the list (or change settings)." If you're
busy, then subscribe using the "NOMAIL" option under "Miscellaneous."
Then, as a subscriber, you may access the archives and/or post
messages at any time, while receiving NO MAIL from the list!
Cook, S. 2009. "Re: TBL in the NY Times, Five Questions,"
TeamLearning post of 13 May 2009 13:55:26 +0800; online at
<http://tinyurl.com/o37lm3>.
Duch, B., S. Gron, & D. Allen, eds. 2001. "The Power of
Problem-Based Learning, A Practical 'How To' For Teaching
Undergraduate Courses in Any Discipline," Stylus Publishing.
Publisher's information at
<http://www.styluspub.com/Books/BookDetail.aspx?productID=44647>.
Amazon. com information at <http://tinyurl.com/o83ec3>. Note the
"Look Inside" feature that allows keyword searches.
Fink, L.D. 2009. "Re: PBL vs. TBL." TeamLearning post of 14 May 2009
05:07:48 -0500; online at <http://tinyurl.com/qgwjg3>.
Goffe, B. 2009. "TBL and Conceptests (Was: Re: TBL in the NY Times,
Five Questions)" post of 14 May 2009 19:42:37-0400 to PhysLrnR and
TeamLearning. Online on the achives of: PhysLrnR at
<http://tinyurl.com/qeqplw>; TeamLearning at
<http://tinyurl.com/o5sxh6>.
Hake, R.R. 2009a. "Re: Active Learning in Medicine," online on the
OPEN! AERA-I archives at <http://tinyurl.com/qduelo>. Post of 10 May
2009 16:56:14-0700 to AERA-I and Net-Gold. Abstract only to PhysLrnR
and DrEd.
Hake, R.R. 2009b. "Re: TBL in the NY Times, Five Questions"
TeamLearning post of 11 May 2009 14:32:45-0700; online at
<http://tinyurl.com/q9pnhc>.
Halloun, I. & D. Hestenes. 1985a. "The initial knowledge state of
college physics students." Am. J. Phys. 53: 1043-1055; online at
<http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>. The print version
contains the Mechanics Diagnostic test, precursor to the widely used
Force Concept Inventory [Hestenes et al. (1992)]
Halloun, I. & D. Hestenes. 1985b. "Common sense concepts about
motion," Am. J. Phys. 53: 1056-1065; online at
<http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>.
Hestenes, D., M. Wells, & G. Swackhamer. 1992. "Force Concept
Inventory," The Physics Teacher 30(3): 141-158; online at
<http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/FCI.PDF> (100kB) [but without the test
itself; The 1995 revision by Halloun, Hake, Mosca, & Hestenes is
online (password protected) at the same URL, and is currently
available in 16 languages: Chinese, Czech, English, Finnish, French,
German, Greek, Italian, Malaysian, Persian, Portuguese, Russian,
Spanish, Slovak, Swedish, & Turkish.
Killingsworth, C. 2009. "TBL vs. PBL vs. 4MAT," TeamLearning post of
13 May 2009 10:30:00-0500; online at <http://tinyurl.com/ra8l86>.
Kolesnikov-Jessop, S. 2009. "Team Program Is an Experiment in Active
Learning," New York Times, 29 April; online at
<http://tinyurl.com/cp4rr8>.
Klymkowsky, M.W., K. Garvin-Doxas, & M. Zeilik. 2003. "Bioliteracy
and Teaching Efficiency: What Biologists Can Learn from Physicists,"
Cell Biology Education 2: 155-161; online at
<http://www.lifescied.org/cgi/reprint/2/3/155>.
Mazur, E. 1997. "Peer instruction: A user's manual." Prentice-Hall. A
description is online at
<http://mazur-www.harvard.edu/education/pi_manual.php>.
Michael, J. 2006. "Where's the evidence that active learning works?"
Advances in Physiology Education 30: 159-167, online at
<http://advan.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/30/4/159>; a masterful
review by a medical education researcher/developer.
Mazur, E. Farewell, Lecture? Science 323(5910): 50 - 51. 2 January;
online to subscribers at
<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/323/5910/50 >; online
free to all, along with related articles, at
<http://tinyurl.com/sbys4>.
Samarasekera, D. 2009. "Re: PBL vs. TBL," TeamLearning post of 14 May
2009 12:14:31+0800; online at <http://tinyurl.com/pv8h5q>. Dujeepa
Samarasekera is the Deputy Head, Medical Education Unit, Dean's
Office, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine at the National University of
Singapore.
Sibley, J. 2009. "Re: TBL in the NY Times, Five Questions,"
TeamLearning post of 13 May 2009 07:00:30-0700; online at
<http://tinyurl.com/plfyoq>.
Sweet, M. 2009. "PBL vs. TBL," TeamLearning post of 13 May 2009
09:37:55-0500; online at <http://tinyurl.com/pyp8sp>.
UBC. 2009. Centre for Instructional Support, Faculty of Applied
Science, "Team-Based Learning Alternative to Lecturing in Large
Class Settings." Based on the work and writings of Larry Michaelsen,
Dee Fink, and Arletta Bauman Knight; online at
<http://teambasedlearning.apsc.ubc.ca/wp-content/uploads/tbl_intro_2008.pdf>
(136 kB).
Williams, B.A. 2001. "Introductory Physics: A Problem-based Model,"
Chapter 21 in Duch et al. (2001). See also Williams & Duch (1997).
Williams, B.A. & B.J. Duch. 1997. "Cooperative problem-based
learning in an under-graduate physics classroom," in "Student-active
science: Models of innovation in college science teaching," edited by
Ann P. McNeal and Charlene D'Avanzo, pp. 453-470. Saunders College
Publishing.
|
