Appreciated your post about the recordings... this was my hunch, having
tried it both ways: Your recordings help in confirming it!
Am wondering: Have you ever tried recording the gRAT discussion after a
take-home iRAT? I tried a few take home iRATs this semester (the first
time I had ever tried this TBL ala Michaelson approach), with the gRAT at
the beginning of the next class after the score sheets for the take-home
iRAT were turned in. It is my guess in this case that the quality of the
group discussion is notched-up a bit, as compared to in-class iRATs, but,
only a hunch. Upside: More class time for other things, and, perhaps more
learning (the take home iRAT scores are always higher on average than the
in-class RATs). Downside: Perhaps too much just "looking up the answer"
rather than studying the material for an in-class RAT. Also, the RATs
likely make their way into "files" (e.g. sorority and fraternity course
files)... meaning the need to revise/redo them every semester!
Gary D. Lynne, Professor
Department of Agricultural Economics and
School of Natural Resources
103B Filley
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Lincoln, NE 68583-0922
Website: http://agecon.unl.edu/lynne
Phone: 1-402-472-8281
"We are always only one failed generational transfer of knowledge away from
darkest ignorance" (Herman Daly)
"Sweet, Michael
S"
<[log in to unmask] To
EXAS.EDU> [log in to unmask]
Sent by: Team cc
Learning
Discussion List Subject
<TEAMLEARNING-L@L Re: Reversing IRA/GRA - GRA/IRA
ISTS.OU.EDU>
05/27/2008 08:57
AM
Please respond to
"Sweet, Michael
S"
<[log in to unmask]
EXAS.EDU>
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
|
