I've noticed the same thing. I run downstairs to put the Scantrons through the machine during the team RATs or to my office for something I need during an Application Exercise and my teams are so involved/ invested in their 'work' that they don't seem to notice that I've left or returned. Karla
-----Original Message-----
From: Team-Based Learning [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bill Goffe
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 7:21 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Research concept: Assessing team learning with remedial learners at a Japanese university
Ah -- very interesting. I wasn't aware of much of this background. At the end, you ask:
> So, the question becomes, does TBL allow teachers to scaffold students
> and teams toward self-direction in learning or must the faculty keep
> constant vigilance regardless of the context?
While I don't have data, I'd suggest a tentative "yes." Several weeks into the semester, when they've experienced TBL and have bought into it, I'll sometimes leave the classroom for a minute or two to get a sip of water or to get something I left in my office. On my return the room is still abuzz with activity and hardly a students even acknowledges my return as they're busy working with their team. I love how TBL sets up incentives for this to come about.
I don't know if this extends beyond my class, but I'd like to think so. It would be really interesting and indeed useful to know.
- Bill
Brent said:
> Thanks for your thoughts on the Hawthorne Effect, Bill. Like it came
> straight from one of my workshops.
>
> I fully agree; and, as you point out, so does most of the research. My
> point might not have been clear; I was not introducing the Hawthorne
> effect to advocate for it, but to point out that constant faculty
> oversight is like an application of the Hawthorne effect.
>
> To avoid further confusion, I think it is important to differentiate
> between the Hawthorne study conclusions and the Hawthorne effect.
> Management gurus and practitioners still hold tight to the “happy
> employees are productive employees” conclusion of the Hawthorne
> studies. However, this conclusion is essentially “cow psychology”; as
> in, “a happy cow produces more milk.” Last time I checked, most humans
> are a bit more complex than cows. Contrary to the conclusions of the
> Hawthorne studies and the assertions of some organizational
> psychologists, most research shows that performance precedes
> satisfaction, not the other way around. in other words, employees who perform tend to be more satisfied on the job.
>
> Rather than finding a connection between satisfaction and performance
> as many assert, the Hawthorne studies showed that paying attention to
> employees can result in temporary increases of productivity. MBWA
> serves as an example of how a manager can use the Hawthorne effect to
> elicit temporary increases in performance; “the boss is coming, look
> busy.” Faculty oversight in TBL also serves as an example of how
> teachers use constant oversight in attempt maintain performance levels in the classroom.
>
> A problem with relying on attention events to motivate performance is
> that employees performance becomes dependent on extrinsic motivational forces.
> This is why the Hawthorne Effect is the enemy of trainers; performance
> will usually increase through an attention event, but it is difficult
> to determine the degree to which performance increases can be
> attributed to the training or to the attention. If training is not
> reinforced or if it does not provide subjects with substantial new
> tools for sustained performance improvements, performance will likely
> drop in direct correlation to the performance that was motivated by the attention event. Homeostasis at work; it all balances out.
> However, this does not mean that there is anything wrong with the
> extrinsic motivators; we just need to be aware of the psychological
> forces at work, and make sure we are productively using the attention
> events to foster development rather than dependence.
>
> Regarding faculty oversight as an application of the Hawthorne effect,
> we have to apply a certain degree of micromanagement when we are
> working with students who have no experience in applying teamwork to
> learning, and with students who lack the maturity for self-direction.
>
> However, is there ever a point at which students can develop
> sufficient capacity and intrinsic motivation to collaborate without faculty oversight?
>
> In professional and adult development environments, managers and
> teachers attempt to facilitate individuals toward independence and
> teams toward interdependence by helping them gain skills and
> motivation for perpetual development beyond the classroom. Fully
> delegating responsibility and authority without any oversight is
> usually a mistake; but, we might find that continuous attention events
> can ultimately hinder development of intrinsic skills and motivation.
>
> So, the question becomes, does TBL allow teachers to scaffold students
> and teams toward self-direction in learning or must the faculty keep
> constant vigilance regardless of the context?
>
> Regards,
>
> Brent
--
Bill Goffe
Department of Economics
SUNY Oswego, 416 Mahar Hall
Oswego, NY 13126
315-312-3444(v), 315-312-5444(f)
[log in to unmask]
http://cook.rfe.org
|
