Why not partition out the application into sections with hard breaks in between (paper-based). When the team encounters a hard break then a member of the team must physically submit the completed portion before receiving the next section until hitting the next break. Each team can set their own pace and determine how much time they need to complete each section. Consider giving all the teams a template that lets them know the total number of question, the format of each question, and the associated marks ahead of time. If you wish, you can prevent the teams from progressing to the next question until all teams have completed the section (however, we do not do that). In terms of satisfying the 'teams working on the same problem at the same time' issue which is fundamental in good applications for TBL, this can be solved by not making sure each team is physically working on the same problem at the same time (teams should not be discussing their answers or finding resources from other teams in the same classroom anyway) but by making sure that everyone submits the entire application exercise by a predetermined time. Then the facilitator should proceed to do the simultaneous reporting (here you can use many creative methods to show both MCQ answers, short answers, and even gallery walk-dependent answers) for each question...one -at a time. The classroom discussion is now 'same problem; same time'. The pedagogical approach is not in taking the application assessment but in the discussion of the problems that happens after the application is complete. I hope that helps.
Cheers,
Charles Gullo
-----Original Message-----
From: Team-Based Learning [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nicole L Arduini-VanHoose
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 1:16 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Application Exercise Medium
If I want students working on multiple problems, then I use paper. If I want to keep them focused on only one step or problem, then I use the projector.
I find that giving students multiple problem compounds the wait time for fast groups. If they are working on one problem, they may finish one minute before the other groups. If they are working on 4 problems, then they may be finished 4 minutes before others. I think, the longer the wait time, the harder it can be to bring them back to focus.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 8, 2013, at 11:10 AM, Michael Kramer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Last semester was my first using TBL. This semester I am using TBL for
> the second time but for a different course. So, a number of variables
> are changing at once, meaning any conclusions that I draw are speculative.
>
> Last semester I printed all my applicaton exercises (AEs) on paper and
> distributed them to the students. This semester I projected the AEs on
> a screen in front of the class.
>
> The big difference between paper and screen projections is that with
> the latter I get to control the pace. With the former, some teams
> would race ahead while other teams lagged. This meant that although
> reporting was simultaneous, the groups were often working on different
> problems at the same time.
>
> I have always resisted using a projector in any of my classes. My
> classes are writing intensive and capped at 25 students, so I always
> preferred the spontaneity and flexibility of writing with chalk on the
> board. Once I started TBL, it became impractical to write the AEs on
> the board, so I just printed them up as handouts, clinging to my old antiprojection bias.
>
> I am now convinced that, at least in the TBL context, Powerpoint
> projections are far superior to paper for AEs.
|
