We use "what grade would you like to get" instead of "pervious grade"
jim
> From: Ruth Levine <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Ruth Levine <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 09:38:35 -0500
> To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: team transparency
>
> I actually put together teams with a pretty large class (66) in a lecture hall
> using a pretty unwieldy method (where they were born). It was chaotic but the
> students had a blast doing it and in the end we had good teams with good
> heterogeneity. I think transparency is fairly important and getting a little
> messy can be fun. You can go up and down the aisles of the lecture hall if you
> need to.
>
> The trouble with using methods like previous grades is that if the students
> find out you did that they will always wonder (or worse--find out!!) who the
> "smart one" and who the "dumb one" in the team is and that can be
> counterproductive to team cohesion in the long run. They might not trust a
> teammate (for stupid reasons like race, gender, or ethnicity--assuming a
> correlation between one of those qualities and "smartness"--"oh-that is the
> "dumb one") If they don't find out how you put them together they will always
> wonder what method you used.
>
> Even if you don't line them up--let them see and know (like the cart sorting
> method) that you are using a system that is relatively random or based on
> qualities that determine success (like previous experience in the subject).
> But I would hesitate to put them in based on things like test scores or course
> scores because people will always wonder who the group "low scorers" are. If
> your groups are large enough (5-7) then every group will have enough talent to
> succeed and in general no group should have a substantial advantage over
> another.
>
> That is just my opinion, for what its worth....
> Ruth
>
>
> Ruth E. Levine MD
>
> Clarence Ross Miller Professor of Psychiatry
> The University of Texas Medical Branch
> 301 University Blvd, Route 0193
> Galveston, Texas 77555-0193
> 409-747-9675 (Phone) 409-747-9677 (Fax)
> [log in to unmask]
> ________________________________________
> From: Team-Based Learning [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sweet,
> Michael S [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 9:05 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: team transparency
>
> Jennifer,
>
> When classes get over a certain size (50-ish, or so), doing the formation in
> class just becomes unworkable. Many teachers just assign students to teams
> and announce the team rosters.
>
> As long as you share why you made the teams as you did (to be fair across
> student backgrounds and give each team the best chance to succeed that you
> could) students seem to quickly forget the formation experience and get on
> with the business of the term.
>
> -M
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Team-Based Learning [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Jennifer Imazeki
> Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 12:11 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: team transparency
>
> Hi all,
>
> How important do you think it is to do the creation of teams in class?
> I'm asking because I was planning to create teams in class by having
> students line up according to different characteristics and then
> counting off. However, I want to make sure that both 'good' and 'bad'
> students are distributed across teams and I'm not sure how to do that
> without identifying the less-good students (in my mind, I am defining
> 'good' and 'bad' students by how well they did in the lower-division
> prereq classes, which are important preparation for this particular
> course). On the first day, I am having them fill out a short survey
> that I will use to gauge how to create the teams and I *could* just
> create the teams myself and walk in the second day and tell the
> students which team they are on. Does anyone think this would be a
> terrible thing to do?
>
> thanks,
> Jennifer
|
