OK, this is only slightly related, but I would like to share what I did with
a team over the summer who had excluded a high performing member. Sorry for
the length.
This was in a 90 minute daily class that ran for five weeks. It is an
advanced undergraduate course in psychology. The team had 7 people,
including 6 who easily found many things in common and worked together well
and a seventh who was slightly older, interpersonally a little rough around
the edges (assertive to the point of aggressiveness, but also warm), and
clearly had a lot of different life experiences than his teammates (had
already taken the class and had to withdraw during the semester due to
stress from a divorce, some vague history with arrest and jail/prison). He
also had a habit of leaving class for long periods. For example, he would
step out from a team activity to "go to the restroom" and not come back for
30 minutes. His team decided near the beginning of the semester that he was
a lazy trouble-maker and by the middle of the semester actively excluded him
from team activities, literally ignoring his input. He became increasingly
frustrated and came to me to complain. He was extremely angry and hurt when
he visited me and was not willing to reach out to his team since they had
already rejected him, so I didn't ask him to. He had already been to my
office many times because he was studying hard and brought questions on the
reading regularly to me during office hours.
The day after he complained, we did mid-semester peer evaluations. I use
these so students have a sense of what their final peer evaluations will be
if nothing changes. It has a numerical component that does not count in the
final grade and a formative component. He was hammered on his and I had to
raise his points (without telling his team) because I thought it would be
too discouraging for him and that they had not evaluated him fairly.
This is what I did. First, I instructed him to never leave class again
except for an emergency because of the negative way his team perceived it.
He found this to be unfair, but agreed, because other team members would
also step out (their team was very efficient in its use of time and often
finished before other teams, so they had a little time to kill). Usually I
would leave that up to the team, but they had never told him openly.
Second, I actively intervened in their team chair arrangement every day for
a week (until it became a habit for them) to make sure that his chair was
placed closely in to the circle and he couldn't be physically excluded.
Third, I moved the teams around so their team would sit at the front of the
class and I could more closely monitor them. Fourth, as I circulated around
the teams to answer questions and monitor the activities, I would expressly
ask him for his thoughts on the activity and publicly reinforce to his team
whatever he had gotten right. Fifth, for the next major activity, I
assigned members in each team a few specific roles (scribe, presenter, etc.)
and made sure he had a role that would ensure integration into the activity.
Sixth, I made positive comments to him while he was sitting with his team
about his thorough studying and the questions he would bring to office
hours. Within 5 class days, there were no problems with his integration
into the team. By the end of the semester, he was evaluated above average
on his peer evals and his most outspoken teammate told me she "had been
wrong about him."
And yes, I use IFATs.
Hope that is helpful to someone. I both didn't leave it to the team to
resolve, but at the same time did not address the issue directly with the
team because it had already become so shaming and painful for him, but
instead addressed it indirectly through team management.
Kristin Croyle
Associate Professor, Psychology
University of Texas - Pan American
Edinburg, Texas
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Michaelsen [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: problem with peer review
Lisa,
I agree completely with Ruth's assessment of the issues and also the advice
you've received from Sandy, Michael and Herb. The nature of group dynamice
is that external threats (e.g., comparisons with other teams) builds
cohesiveness and internal threats (especially things like evaluating each
other) create a barrier to cohesveness. Because TBL, inherently provides so
many external comparisons, your problem is very rare and I don't think it
will EVER occur if:
1) You use the IF-AT answer sheets to give real-time feedback--both the team
and the non-participant can't help but realize the dysfunctional impact of
one member not participating.
2) Your initial peer feedback is completely formative in nature (i.e., it
doesn't count toward the grade).
What is the best way to address the immediate problem?
1) I don't think that I'd intervene in the group. I'd let them work out the
problem and (even without the IFATs) I'd bet they will get it done over
time.
2) I have an overall concern that, if you don't do anything, you might be
adding to the general problem that Michael describes (i.e., it's not easy to
talk about dysfunctional issues in a group so we tend not to do it and are
less effective in the long run) because, unless the problem gets resolved,
having provided honest feedback is actually hurting the group.
3) You might consider raising the issue with the class. I'd describe this
group's general situation as a common problem that probably exists to some
extent in every group in the class (even if it isn't obvious) and have the
groups discuss what they can do to minimize the potential of having members
feel hesitant about participating because of a fear that they might be seen
as being "pushy."
4) In addition, as the course is winding down, I'd recommend giving the
class a summary showing all the scores for all the groups (i.e., for each
team the low, average and high individual scores, the team score and a
"gain" score--comparing the score of each team to its own best member) and
have the groups talk about what helped (and hurt) there team with respect to
getting a high gain score. I'd bet that the students would be able to voice
the value of getting problems out in the open and getting them resolved.
Larry
--
Larry K. Michaelsen
Professor of Management
University of Central Missouri
Dockery 400G
Warrensburg, MO 64093
[log in to unmask] <---PLEASE NOTE NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS !!!
660/543-4124 voice
660/543-8465 fax
>>> "Levine, Ruth" <[log in to unmask]> 10/23/09 10:44 AM >>>
Lisa:
Your situation really raises two issues-
1)How to deal with the immediate problem of the one student inhibiting the
other student from talking, and
2)How to prevent a problem like this in the future.
I find the immediate problem a little more vexing, because one hates to
interfere with team process by talking with either the critical student or
the student with hurt feelings. Getting the whole team together to talk
about team process is a thought, but again it is outside of normal class
processes--unless you institute it now for the whole class- and that is an
option. It is not a guarantee. But it might do something.
For the future:
The reason I believe that Larry mentions using the if/at is because the
immediate feedback will prompt the team to pull the student with hurt
feelings to participate--they will want him to share his knowledge and will
not allow him to be quiet. Larry- is that what you are thinking?
I would suggest for future iterations to cut back on graded peer feedback
early in the semester and just have formative evaluation--followed by small
group time to process the feedback. I find that my students will be very
open and even more critical with their feedback (I use the fink method) with
the formative feedback but since its not graded it doesn't tend to inhibit
group cohesion.
Ruth
Ruth Levine
Professor of Psychiatry
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences
The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston
-----Original Message-----
From: Team-Based Learning [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Lisa Hager
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 10:15 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: problem with peer review
In response to people's questions--
I am not using the IF-AT answer sheets but I do use Scantrons and grade them
in class. I am also using activities that follow the 4 Ss. I have 5 teams in
my class (2 teams of 5 and 3 teams of 6). I developed the teams based on
Larry's suggestions. I'm using the Team-Based Learning book, plus the
website, plus materials I originally got from the Case Studies Workshop in
Buffalo. For the peer review eval I am using Kole's form. Students set the
grading scale and Team Maintenance is 15% of the grade. Quantitative scores
are 60% and Qualitative scores are 40%. The students submit the quantitative
evals via Excel with no identifying info and they submit the qual evals via
Word and I compile them all into individual files for each student. I can't
do much more to control for anonymity. They do the peer evals outside of
class.
Overall the few points the student is losing won't make much of a dent in
his grade (or the other students who are also being graded harshly by this
person) but I'm more concerned about his unwillingness to participate. He is
one of the strongest students in the class. He loves the TBL and says he is
learning more in this class than he ever has in other classes. I want him to
maintain that enthusiasm.
I haven't had them discuss the feedback with each other. That might be a
good idea.
Lisa
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Michaelsen" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 8:19 AM
Subject: Re: problem with peer review
Lisa,
I don't know that I've ever had the problem you describe. I suspect that
you may have missed an important practice that has the effect of preventing
this type of situation. I would add three other questions to those posed by
Ruth.
1) Are you using the IF-AT answer sheets for your tRATs?
2) What kinds of team application activities have you had them do (i.e., Do
they follow the 4 S's?
3) What kind of peer evaluation instrument are you using... specifically
does it have any sort of "forced-choice" (vs. a rating scale on which peers
have the option of weighting everyone high--or low)?
Larry
--
Larry K. Michaelsen
Professor of Management
University of Central Missouri
Dockery 400G
Warrensburg, MO 64093
[log in to unmask] <---PLEASE NOTE NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS !!!
660/543-4124 voice
660/543-8465 fax
>>> Lisa Hager <[log in to unmask]> 10/22/09 6:49 PM >>>
I am new to using TBL and I have a problem I need some help with. I have one
team that has an individual who is assigning very low numbers to 4 out of 5
of the team members he/she is evaluating. One member of the team has not
participated during the last two classes b/c he was rated as not being open
to others' ideas and got a qualatitative comment that he is too vocal and
doesn't give others a chance. This student was also rated as not being
prepared. I know that the student is prepared and that he is vocal but I
know that he does work well with the team. The rater has also rated 3 other
members of the team with low scores. Do I step in and talk to the one
student? Do I let the students work it out? Do I advise the student in how
to approach his team about the problem? I initially decided to let it work
itself out but then the one student came to ask my advice and to tell me his
is uncomfortable with participating in his group now. They are ready to
evalute each other for the 3rd time and are half way through the semester.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Lisa
Lisa D. Hager, Ph.D., Chair
Social Sciences Division
Department of Psychology
Spring Hill College
4000 Dauphin St.
Mobile, AL 36608
(251) 380-3055
|
