Thanks for your insights Jim.
I understand the classifications of small-group learning that L. Dee Fink
defined: informal, cooperative, collaborative, team [With apologies. I have
experience with other team models besides TBL, so I have difficulty giving TBL
its own classification; so, I'll just call it "team", which includes models like TBL,
the Phoenix Learning Team model, work teams, etc.]. I understand how each
model has dedicated followers; but, I tend to take an contextual approach; I
think developing understanding and competency in different models helps us to
align practices with context; and, that our practices must be flexible enough to
adapt to a continuously changing context and to keep students engaged.
I think you are correct about the different products produced by TBL teams
and Phoenix learning teams. TBL uses RATs to enhance individual accountability
for team projects. I find this works well when converting a traditional classroom
to more interdependent processes. However, Phoenix is a university for adult
working professionals who typically have extensive real-world experience.
Although I have experimented with using the RAT as one of my tools in an adult
classroom, not too many adult professionals have experience with RATs in the
workplace. Most are familiar with the work team processes upon which the
Phoenix model is based.
You are absolutely correct how the Ringlemann effect drains group
effectiveness. While TBL uses RATs and direct observation to combat social
loafing, Phoenix learning teams establish a charter, submit team evaluations for
each project (not just at the end of the course), keep logs of their activities,
and are coached by the faculty. Following a fundamental concept of
organizational psychology for reversing social loafing, students who do not
participate in a project are supposed to be recognized and rewarded
accordingly. In other words, no contribution means no team grade.
I cannot speak directly to a situation that you heard about from someone else;
but, situations in which a social loafer successfully passes through the efforts
of others typically have one of two sources at Phoenix: the faculty is failing to
follow the program or the students are failing to hold the faculty accountable
through their chartering process. Sometimes it can be a combination of slacking
faculty and slacking teams. Either way, it should be an exception; I am glad to
hear that it was "one course" out of many the student had.
Another thing to consider is that the team grades typically represent 30% of
the individual student score. Theoretically, a student could bail on all of the
team assignments and still earn a C- if he or she earned perfect scores on
individual projects. I have never seen this happen; students who bail on team
assignments typically have other issues that contribute to an unsatisfactory
grade. In your friend's case, the typical Phoenix course is built on a scale of
100; so, losing 10% likely meant that the social loafer dropped an entire grade
for not contributing to that team project.
An area where you will find similarity between the Phoenix team learning model
and TBL is in your point about how a team's focus is to solve problems. Phoenix
goes beyond having the students solve theoretical problems to having the
students apply the course concepts to solve actual problems in the workplace,
their homes, and the community. They still use the same textbooks as other
universities; but, the Phoenix students have the added benefit of a real-world
environment in which to apply learning. They aren’t preparing for real-world,
they’re living it.
Also like TBL, the Phoenix learning team model facilitates student development
through feedback; but, the feedback mechanisms go beyond scratch-off cards.
The Phoenix system is built on a dynamical system theory model that succeeds
by integrating multiple developmental feedback loops throughout the individual,
team, and classroom level. Individuals contract to develop their teams, teams
contract to develop the individuals, and faculty facilitates team activities to
develop the entire class. Individuals, teams, and class also participate in the
mutual evaluation process. For example, while a team is giving a presentation
they are expected to help teach the material by directly applying it to solve a
practical problem and present their solution to the class. The other teams act
as an "executive team" whose job it is to evaluate the presentations, ask
questions, and offer feedback.
Regarding TBL in Japan. I am not familiar with the higher education systems in
Korea and Singapore, but, I would be careful about lumping them with Japan
under the “Asia” umbrella as if they were the same. I am conducting research
to assess the viability of a team learning model with student volunteers at a
private university in northern Japan. This last Wednesday, the students had
their first exposure to small-group learning, which was a packed 90-minute
introduction to team learning that started with a RAP and ended with the first
public speaking assignment any of the students had ever had in college.
Looking at the preliminary data today, I see that 30 out of the 32 subjects said
a major challenge they face with team learning is overcoming their passive
personalities. Most said that a reason they volunteered for the research is so
they can learn how to be more assertive.
Regardless, I fully agree with you; I believe that the problem with small-group
learning is more with the professors and the institutions than with the
students. Working with Japanese students in my own classroom, during guest
lectures at Japanese universities, and in community workshops, I can usually
get Japanese students to engage in small-group learning practices. I don’t
usually need to get as formal as TBL because the context does not require it.
What TBL is providing for me here is the RAP, which gives me a means to
measure the difference between learning of individuals alone and learning of the
same individuals in teams. Impressive results, by the way.
I can understand how hearing about "a number of schools" in Asia might seem
like a lot when perceived from across an ocean. Here on the ground, I am eager
to find the undergraduate universities in Japan that are using small-group
learning methods. I have been exchanging ideas with some scholars who are
attempting to apply more collaborative processes in Tokyo, Kochi, and Kobe.
So far, the few scholars I've been able to find applying more collaborative
processes are working in graduate medical programs in large metropolitan areas.
Just as Japan is neither Korea nor Singapore, Tokyo is not Japan. Therefore,
when I try to hold up these "big city" graduate programs as examples for rural
undergraduate professors to follow, they defend the status quo by saying "they
can do that because they are working with graduate students; our students
don't have what it takes to collaborate in learning."
If you know of contacts in Japan who are using any kind of small-group learning
method, please let me know. Like I said, I have been networking with some of
them, but I am sure it’s not all of them.
Thanks for your ideas.
Regards,
Brent
|
