Since we do TBL in the context of a clerkship, and so much of the grading in individual, our TBL component weighs heavily on the teamwork.
Our grading rubric is as follows:
TBL is worth 15% of overall grade
IRAT: 30%
GRAT: 70%
peer evaluation (Fink method): percent multiplier modifies GRAT
Applications: not graded (we used to grade them, but arguing tended to be more about points then concepts, so we dropped the points and discussion improved)
However, we also have the policy that the team takes the final summative "shelf exam" as a team. This is worth 35% of the grade with the breakdown as follows:
Individual performance: 70%
Team performance: 30%
Students also have to obtain a "passing" score on the individual component to pass the course...in other words, the team score can't rescue them if they don't do well individually.
When I first started doing TBL I had the teams determine grade weights. After I switched to a "percent multiplier" peer evaluation system the only question was individual vs team weight and since students always chose the highest team and lowest individual I stopped the grade weight exercise since students would always choose the same ratio anyway.
Larry's point of making sure that the individual is "high enough" is one I have wondered about recently. I think that 30% is about as low as I would want to go with medical students. With undergraduates, I might even want to go higher. But I think its essential that the team weight is high to ensure that the students are motivated to contribute for the sake of the team. We have conducted focus groups with students and they tell us that they prepare not as much for themselves but because they don't want to let their teammates down. That tells me alot about the power of team accountability.
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]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
________________________________
From: Team-Based Learning [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Chris Burns [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 10:46 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: What is your grading scheme?
Hi all,
I'm curious about how (those who do) you grade application exercises considering that they should ideally not have a clear single best answer. At my former and current institution we agreed not to grade GAEs to encourage faculty to push the limits and develop challenging applications that may have more than one correct answer.
Thanks for your input.
Chris Burns
University of Illinois College of Medicine
________________________________
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:50:04 -0500
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: What is your grading scheme?
To: [log in to unmask]
Jim and Others,
My grading scheme creates 2 general categories, with sub-items in each one. The specific points vary from time to time, but the last time I taught a course, here was the breakdown, with 200 points in the whole course:
Individual Work: (100 Points)
- iRATs (best 4 out of 5) - 20 pts
- Bi-weekly journals - 30 pts
- Teaching Portfolio - 15
- Learning Portfolio - 15
- Individual Learning Project - 20
Group Work: (100 Points)
- gRATs - 45 pts
- Group Design Project - 30
- Final Group Project - 25
The total points for the Group Work were adjusted for each person in the group, by multiplying them by the Peer Evaluation score that each person received from his/her group. This Adjusted Group Component was then added to the points from the Individual Work, to create that person's Total Score for the course.
Dee Fink
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Elizabeth Oldland <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Hi Jim
TBL contributes to 20% of our overall unit (subject) score. Within this, each component is equally weighted.
So overall:
Exam 40%
Assignment 40%
TBL 20%
* iRAT 5%
* tRAT 5%
* Applications 5 %
* Peer evaluation 5%
regards
Elizabeth
Elizabeth Oldland
Lecturer
School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health
Deakin University, Melbourne Burwood Campus, Australia
Phone: 03 9244 6608 International: +61 3 9244 6608
Fax: 03 9244 6118 International: +61 3 9244 6118
email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Website: http://www.deakin.edu.au/nursing
Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code 00113B (Vic)
[Description: Description: Description: Nusingawards_banner_V1 11 (3)]
[Description: cid:image003.jpg@01CD8503.E8C875E0]<http://www.deakin.edu.au/future-students/postgrad/events.php?utm_source=email-signature-pg&utm_medium=email&utm_content=signature-pg&utm_campaign=t3-pg-info-night>
From: Team-Based Learning [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Sibley, James Edward
Sent: Thursday, 11 October 2012 7:18 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: What is your grading scheme?
Hi
I was just reading
Dean Paramlee, Larry Michaelsen, Sandy Cook, Patrica Hudes
Team-Based Learning : A practical guide
They presented a grading scheme
Article's Grading Scheme
iRAT 25%
tRAT 35%
Applications 35%
Peer Evaluation 5%
This is very different than the one we use
UBC Grading Scheme
iRAT 10%
tRAT 10%
Applications NOT GRADED
Peer Evaluation 5%
The reminder individual things like papers, problem set, midterms
#############################
What does your grading scheme look like?
--
Jim Sibley
Director
Centre for Instructional Support
Faculty of Applied Science
University of British Columbia
2205-6250 Applied Science Lane
Vancouver, BC Canada
V6T 1Z4
Phone 604.822.9241
Fax 604.822.7006
Email: [log in to unmask]
Check out http://<http://cis.apsc.ubc.ca/>www.teambasedlearning.org<http://www.teambasedlearning.org>
© Copyright 2012, Jim Sibley, All rights reserved The information contained in this e-mail message and any attachments (collectively "message") is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient (or recipients) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error and that any review, use, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail, and delete the meesage.
Important Notice: The contents of this email are intended solely for the named addressee and are confidential; any unauthorised use, reproduction or storage of the contents is expressly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and any attachments immediately and advise the sender by return email or telephone.
Deakin University does not warrant that this email and any attachments are error or virus free.
--
***********************
L. Dee Fink
234 Foreman Ave.
Norman, OK 73069
Phone/FAX: 405-364-6464
Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Websites:
www.designlearning.org<http://www.designlearning.org> [multiple resources on course design]
www.deefinkandassociates.com<http://www.deefinkandassociates.com> [offer workshops & online courses]
www.finkconsulting.info<http://www.finkconsulting.info> [Fink's consulting activities & publications]
**Former President of the POD Network in Higher Education (2004-2005)
**Author of: Creating Significant Learning Experiences (2003, Jossey-Bass)
**National Project Director: Teaching & Curriculum Improvement (TCI) Project
**Senior Associate, Dee Fink & Associates Consulting Services
|
