I teach a post-grad paper in Health, Education and Youth Development to
a relatively small class (16-30). I've used the following system for
marking the multi-choice readiness assurance tests (RATS) over the 2
years I have used TBL and it's worked very well for the most part:
- Students take the iRAT (Individual Readiness Assurance Test)
individually on photocopied sheets.
- When they have finished students then place their iRAT in the Team
Folder.
- As Teams they then complete the same test (tRAT) using the IF AT
(Immediate Feedback Assessment Technique) forms and received instant
feedback on whether or not they had the correct answer when they scratch
their agreed choice on the IF AT form.
- Once all the Teams have finished we then go through the RAT as a class
(I use overhead slides of the RAT) and we discuss the questions and any
queries.
- At this point students mark their iRAT themselves, using a different
coloured pen so that they can't change their answers on the iRAT paper.
They are seated in a group so they are under close scrutiny from their
colleagues and there is little opportunity for dishonesty.
- I collect both the iRATS and tRATS.
The advantages of this approach to marking are that students receive
immediate feedback on their individual and team efforts, identify their
own misunderstandings and shortfalls, and mostly improve their
performance over the semester.
Warm regards
Sue
Sue Grant
PAEDS 719 Course Facilitator
The University of Auckland
-----Original Message-----
From: Team-Based Learning [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of David Smith
Sent: Friday, 21 January 2011 7:34 a.m.
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: To give scores or not to give scores
Don't give individual scores before the team test.
It's about the process of logical thinking and learning. Some students
will get the correct answer by chance (when multiple choice) and argue
for their uninformed reason. They will not listen to and evaluate the
logic of proposed answers, but only stick to their own misinformed
reason. Learning occurs through the discussion and interaction of the
team. The feedback and reinforcement come here, or, in my case, later.
I used RAs in Statistics that had short, written answers. I couldn't
possibly have automated the process.
( I learned a lot about the students' acquisition of knowledge by
seeing answers the students had composed. Sometimes, especially early
on, I learned about writing better questions.)
I could not possibly have scored every individual RA before the team
RA. I used the time the teams were working to score most or all of the
individual RAs, which I returned when the the team RAs were turned in.
This gave the individuals immediate feedback on their own answers,
since they then had, usually, more correct answers as well as logical,
thought-out reasons for the team answers.
After a few years I started doing exams using the same format as the
RAs: individual, then team. Since I couldn't possibly score them all
in the time available, I started handing out an exam key, one per
team, to each team and had the team score its own team exam. (I let
them take a break and handed out the team exams all at the same time.
If they went to do research on their own answers, I decided it was no
big deal and I should accept it as fair use. Minor issues could be
researched, but major ones could not.) Three things happened. First,
when students left the exam after scoring their own team's exam, they
usually had a very good idea how they had done as individuals. Second,
the reactions to exams changed dramatically: I got very few arguments
or appeals about their exam answers, though I allowed appeals based on
"as correct or more correct than the answer key," personal
interactions surrounding the grades were dramatically reduced, and I
spent very little time on exam review at the following class session
since everyone pretty much knew where they stood and why. Third, I
started including more complex, sophisticated questions in examining a
subject that is alternately seen as obscurantist and arcane,
technically complex, and dull and irrelevant.
I concluded that there was a substantial positive impact on exams. The
reinforcement for good and bad answers was almost immediate, and
usually from the team.
However, I could not have done this, without great distress and
objections, unless the teams had been doing the RAs for several weeks.
When the exams came, the teams knew what to do and got to work.
All of this seemed to reinforce the team ethos. No hard data on
anything. All observations strictly qualitative. I think it also made
me less concerned about the exact scores on the individual RAs. Some
folks did badly on RAs and well on exams. I used only the exam grades
where they were better. (Just ordinary charity, I thought.)
Best wishes to all,
David
--
David W. Smith, Ph.D., MPH
Chartered Statistician
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Herb C <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Any thoughts one way or the other on whether it's better to give the
> students their scores before the team test or not?
|
