Two suggestios: 1. Give the class a vote option for the
Grade weights-you provide the parameters,
Let them hash it out; 2. Use a relatively low IRAT option
So that you don't diminish the power of the
Teamwork. We have used as low as 25 percent
with diminution of individual effort- no one
wants to come and not contribute fully. 70
percent count for the indiv work is too high.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 24, 2009, at 3:03 PM, Gary D Lynne <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Lane:
>
> One thing to keep in mind: If students are actively participating in
> the Team, it is possible for all of the individuals to be below 70%
> while the Team >70%... I have experienced it several times (albeit I
> have only used TBL twice, last two years running.. in an
> undergraduate class of about 45-50students, 7-9 teams each year).
> This is to say, on more than one occasion, all the individuals on a
> Team earned less than 70% on a RAT (answers collected on a Response
> system "clicker") while the team earned upwards of 80-90% on the
> team RAT (team discussion followed by scratching an IFAT form)!
>
> Magic? I don't think so: I believe there is a kind of synergy... a
> kind of "ecological rationality" ... at work here. Not to make your
> decision more difficult, but to argue someone earning less that 70%
> individually did not in some sense contribute to the 80-90% grade is
> probably not the case...
>
> To me this is more about how much to weight the individual and team
> efforts... we use a 60% individual, 40% team weighting. The problem
> you have pointed to has not yet appeared, although I can see where
> it could happen!
>
> No easy answers here...
>
>
> Gary D. Lynne, Professor
> Department of Agricultural Economics and
> School of Natural Resources
> 103B Filley
> University of Nebraska-Lincoln
> Lincoln, NE 68583-0922
> USA
> Website: http://www.agecon.unl.edu/facultystaff/directory/lynne.html
> Phone: 1-402-472-8281 Cell: 1-402-430-3100
> This message and any attachments are confidential, may contain
> privileged information, and are intended solely for the recipient(s)
> named above. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person
> responsible for delivery to the named recipient, any review,
> distribution, dissemination or copying by you is prohibited. If you
> have received this message in error, you should notify the sender by
> return e-mail and delete the message from your computer system and
> destroy any copies in any form.
>
> "We are always only one failed generational transfer of knowledge
> away from darkest ignorance" (Herman Daly)
> "We do not just have our own interests. We share interests with
> others. Empathy is neither altruistic nor self-interested. It rather
> exemplifies the implicit solidarity of human nature" (Robert Solomon)
>
> <graycol.gif>"Brunner, Lane J" ---07/24/2009 09:30:34 AM---Hi folks-
>
> "Brunner, Lane J" <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent by: Team Learning Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
> 07/24/2009 09:30 AM
>
> Please respond to
> "Brunner, Lane J" <[log in to unmask]>
> <ecblank.gif>
> To
> <ecblank.gif>
> [log in to unmask]
> <ecblank.gif>
> cc
> <ecblank.gif>
> <ecblank.gif>
> Subject
> <ecblank.gif>
> Student progression with TBL
> <ecblank.gif> <ecblank.gif>
>
> Hi folks-
>
> We are refining our progression policy for our new school and would
> appreciate some wisdom from the group. We are following the
> traditional TBL model with respect to grading where about 35% of a
> student’s grade is based on the team’s work (tRATs, application
> exercises) and 65% is based on the student’s individual work (iRATs,
> exams, peer evaluation). Assume that the expectations of the facult
> y and logistics of the course are “perfect” and that the only
> variable is student and team performance.
>
> Assume for the sake of this discussion on progression that a student
> must receive a course grade of 70% to pass a class and progress in
> the program (i.e. 70% is the minimum acceptable level of mastery/
> competency). While it may be unlikely, mathematically, a student can
> receive a “passing” grade (>70%) in the course yet as an
> individual, earn less than 70%. Thus, the student as an individual w
> ould not have achieved the minimum level of competency but
> “passed” because of the team’s effort.
>
> This situation could occur if you have accidentally formed a team of
> weakly performing individuals who, as a team, barely achieve the
> minimum competency of 70%. For example, the team averages 75%, but
> one of the individuals scores below 70% on each individual
> assessment (iRATs, exams, and peer evaluations). This hypothetical
> student’s course grade may be just above 70%, but their individual p
> erformance demonstrates a lack of competency.
>
> Okay…I hope all that made sense! Now for a few questions.
> 1. Have any of you experienced such a scenario in one of your TBL
> courses?
> 2. Do you have progression policies in place to address such a
> possibility?
> 3. If you have a progression policy that may work, would you be
> willing to share it?
> 4. If you don’t have a progression policy that would apply, what wis
> dom could you offer us?
>
> Thanks everyone!
>
> Lane
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Lane J. Brunner, R.Ph., Ph.D.
> Dean, School of Pharmacy
> Rueckert-Hartman College for Health Professions
> Regis University
> 3333 Regis Boulevard, H-28
> Denver, CO 80221-1099
> Phone: (303) 625-1300
> Fax: (303) 625-1305
> Regis University School of Pharmacy
>
>
>
>
|
