Responding to Jim and Gary:
I read Gary's query differently than Jim did. Perhaps I'm wrong on this,
but perhaps a different perspective will be helpful.
Jim is answering Gary by comparing the effectiveness of TBL to lecture in
delivering content. While Gary says he's concerned about "how much material
needs to be delivered in the traditional "sage on stage" (lecturing)
format," I'm wondering if that's really where the problem is.
Clearly, if Gary or I are really only concerned about content, then TBL
solves that problem for us when we assign extensive pre-class readings and
quiz before "lecture." For me, the problem has not been in delivering broad
content, per se, but in providing motivation for students.
So here's my attempt at defining this "content" problem (I'm just taking a
stab at it...). Gary questions whether or not there are good ideas for
customizing TBL for 200-level classes. The issue with content is that, for
400-level classes (and perhaps 200-level classes in engineering programs,
like Jim's) students tend to be more interested in the material and
motivated. For 200-level general-education classes in schools that have
large populations of otherwise-occupied students, a substantial portion of
attending students may be content to flunk their individual RAT quizzes and
hope that team scores will be high enough to let them pull a 'C' for the
semester. When this happens student participation in team activities can
degenerate a bit.
Thus, I figure that I need to apply TBL a bit differently in a 200-level
class than I do in a 400-level class. How might I customize? (1) Restrict
the semester grade weight that is applied to team activities, so that it's
not too high. (2) Include a bit more lecturing to integrate the material
covered in exercises and perhaps even to "level" in areas where too many
students seem to be completely "out of the loop." As for item (2) in an
econ class like Gary is probably teaching, this includes for me some
class-wide lecture and discussion that I use to establishing a baseline
understanding of supply and demand.
I hope this helps.
Fritz Laux
Associate Professor of Economics
Northeastern State University
--
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Sibley, Jim <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Gary
>
> We use TBL in many lower division courses
>
> It can be difficult when there are external content covering expectations
> for your course
>
> We use TBL in a 2nd year mechanical design course and last year when we
> resorted to lecturing at a difficult topic (we thought) the students stopped
> us and asked what we thought we were doing! They wanted TBL
>
> There is a good paper by Haidet et al (available at TBL site) around active
> vs passive learning and they found that they could cover as much detailed
> technical mathematical content as a passive delivery.
>
> There is also a great paper by Weeks (1987) talking about the fact that
> most engineering undergraduates (or at least the ones studied) see the
> instructor do 1000 problems at the board....and do another 3000 in their
> homework....BUT have no discernable improvement in their problem solving
> skills over their program......hmmm
>
> Read Bligh about the ineffectiveness of lectures
>
> I think the reality is that we as academics are in love with content and
> have a lot of trouble giving it up
>
> The literature really points to our failure to effectively "cover the
> content" (Ramsden has some damming quotes about this)
>
> THE REAL QUESTION is what do you want your students to be able to
> do.......reproduce lots of detail on demand.....or be able to think and
> solve problems
>
> This is very controversial....I am in the middle of a curriculum review for
> one of my engineering departments and the "reducing" content issue is always
> at the surface
>
> I have instructors who just can't give up the content....they are now using
> pre-class podcasts to "cover the content" so they can use class time
> differently.
>
> I am a bit biased.....I think TBL is the answer to many of the curriculum
> issues we struggle with....I seen too many good outcomes in TBL courses of
> all levels....
>
> Jim
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Team-Based Learning [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On
> Behalf Of *Gary D Lynne
> *Sent:* Friday, April 24, 2009 6:05 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* TBL for all levels?
>
> The "Webinar" yesterday stirred a thought/question, which I did not get
> around to posting: Does TBL have to be modified a bit for different levels
> of teaching, e.g. 200 level for mainly sophomores ( a course I have been
> working at converting into a TBL format) v. a graduate course? My concern is
> with how much material needs to be delivered in the traditional "sage on
> stage" (lecturing) format. I can see where an upper division (especially a
> capstone) course and/or graduate course could rely almost exclusively on
> self-teaching, with lecture supplements, and problem sets/case studies that
> really bring application to the table.
>
> I am more sceptical about the latter for 100-200 level courses, at least
> based on my limited experience ... trying to bring TBL into my 200 level
> course only for the second time this semester. I find myself needing to do a
> bit more traditional lecturing than TBL seems to call for.... especially
> with respect to core ideas these students have never seen before (in
> contrast to upper division, graduate students who have seen the core
> ideas/theories/constructs many times before).
>
> Any insights on this matter will be appreciated!
>
> 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://www.agecon.unl.edu/facultystaff/directory/lynne.html
> Phone: 1-402-472-8281 Cell: 1-402-430-3100
>
> "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)
>
|
