Sandy,
Not to pile on too much to what Michael has written below (which I
agree with), but I wanted to clarify something you wrote:
Do the students complain they are not learning as much individually or
that they don't like their individual score (or both)?
If you and the students feel the IRAT before GRAT process generally
works well, but you don't want individuals to be too severely
penalized for their individual performance (before they can avail
themselves of the authentic learning they say comes from the GRAT that
follows), then you might explore a class-wide review of the grade
weights assigned to the IRAT and GRAT respectively. As long as you
don't lose the accountability that Michael reports below AND everyone
agrees to a lower weight for the IRAT vs. GRAT, you should be fine.
If this feels too messy to try mid-stream, then play with the grade
weights for the next time the course is offered, or set new minimums
and maximums that the students themselves can negotiate within at the
start of the course. If you've never tried this "grade weight setting"
exercise as described in the TBL book, I highly recommend it; works
great.
Finally, I have to say that the idea of developing and maintaining two
separate, but equal (or at least related) sets of questions for the
same content -- for the GRAT and IRAT sequence you propose below --
sounds daunting and time-consuming. In trying to meet the students
needs or requests, I think the test design burden to the faculty
member would be greater than most would be willing to bear.
That's my .02.
Good luck,
John
-------------------------------
John Fritz
Asst. VP, Instructional Technology & New Media
UMBC Office of Information Technology
410.455.6596 | [log in to unmask] | www.umbc.edu/~fritz
On May 27, 2008, at 9:56 AM, Sweet, Michael S wrote:
> Hi Sandy,
>
> In my view, I think a way to make sure *individuals* are learning is
> to incorporate individual assignments (e.g. papers, test, even mid-
> terms) into the unit following the readiness assurance process and
> instructor feedback. Any given unit could begin with a RAP, then
> instructor feedback and application exercises, and conclude with an
> individual exam.
>
> I have been researching the discourse processes that take place in
> various TBL classrooms for three years now. I have recordings of
> the dialogues that unfold following both kinds of process: a gRAT
> following an iRAT and a gRAT *not* following an iRAT.
>
> When students take the iRAT first, the gRAT conversations which
> follow begin with a general reporting of “What did you put?” and--as
> differences are quickly discovered—questions about “Why did you put
> that?” immediately ensue, and the students are off-and-running,
> digging into the content and teaching each other. Most of them have
> thought out their answers and have reasons for having put what they
> did—and they are ready to talk about those reasons.
>
> However, when students did *not* take the iRAT first, the
> conversations were much flabbier, flatter and filled with
> satisficing. There are long periods of silence during which the
> students read the question, often followed with a very hesitant “I
> don’t know. . . A, maybe?” These timid first-tries are often
> siezed by the group and rarely challenged as often as you’d like—
> team members just seemed relieved that somebody offered up something
> as an answer, and they are eager to move on and get it over with.
>
> I think the having students take iRAT first is important for a few
> reasons:
>
> 1) Time to read and think about the question at one’s own pace
> (not the pace of the group first)
> 2) Private weighing of alternatives and committing to one
> answer (achieving what is called “epistemic closure”)
> 3) This commitment triggers an emotional investment in one’s
> answer and makes one later need a good reason to abandon it
> (motivating them to argue toward the best thinking).
>
> These are just some thoughts off the top of my head. You can give
> it a try if you like, but I think you’ll find that the group
> discussions that do not follow an iRAT are pretty watery and
> unsatisfying. At least that’s what I found.
>
> For what it’s worth!
>
> -M
>
>
>
>
> From: Team Learning Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> ] On Behalf Of Sandy Cook
> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 4:52 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Reversing IRA/GRA - GRA/IRA
>
> Dear All,
>
> I wanted to ask everyone a question about an idea we are playing
> with here. With the volume of material the students need to prepare
> for this intensive Duke-NUS medical school basic science curriculum,
> it is sometimes so very difficult for them to be certain they have
> focused on the right content and at the right level until after the
> GRA section. They feel a bit demoralized at their “relatively” low
> IRA scores. Some of our faculty (not all) do believe that the
> students learn so much from the GRA part, but there is no real way
> to be 100% certain. If the IRA is partially designed to ensure
> individual accountability, but you have a group who is highly
> motivated to be accountable and your goal is that they actually
> learn it the material what would be your thoughts on reversing them
> sometimes? I also thought it would help the students to work as a
> team better in their learning – as sometimes they just study on
> their own and don’t really take full advantage of the power of group
> study (and sometimes they just don’t have time or want someone there
> to ask questions when the group cannot answer it).
>
> What if we gave a comprehensive closed book GRA – have the groups
> teach, learn, question together to get the answers and then do a
> more focused, closed book IRA on similar (but obviously changed)
> questions to see if they, as individuals, get it?
>
> Many of our faculty here are not completely convinced that ALL the
> individuals are learning in the groups, thus are skeptical of the
> use of the group scores to be added to student’s overall scores. We
> want to explore ways, beyond or in addition to the regular end of
> module exams and standardized exams, to demonstrate that they
> actually have learned in the group process.
>
> Thoughts, comments?
>
> Sandy
> ***************************************
> Sandy COOK, PhD | Associate Dean, Curriculum Development | Duke-NUS
> Graduate Medical School Singapore | W: (65) 6516 8722| F: (65) 6227
> 2698 |
> Administrative Executive:Belinda Yeo | [log in to unmask] | 6516-8511
|
