I did plan ahead somewhat. Every other Friday was movie day and everyone who
attended and filled out an "active viewing worksheet" got a point. That's
something new. But then during the term when a group activity turned out to
be a dud I would give very easy grades on it.
So, I think in the future I would be less lenient if only because the group
activities would, I hope, be better. I will probably keep the movie idea for
MWF courses. It gives students the option of a day off if they're doing
well, and that makes everyone happy.
-Melissa
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 12:26 PM, John Fritz <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Glad to hear it, Melissa.
> And I think what you did was just fine. Sorry if it sounded otherwise.
>
> But I'm curious: you anticipated possible resistance, enough to plan ahead
> by being more lenient as you first introduced TBL. How did you know this
> might be an issue? Did other colleagues who used TBL tip you off? Had you
> experimented with other teaching changes before and encountered resistance?
> And since students did love TBL and learning improved, what are your
> thoughts about gradually being less lenient on the grading the next time you
> use it?
>
> Please don't think I'm singling you out: I don't mean to. But it does make
> me wonder how tenure (or the lack of it) continues to influence innovation
> in teaching. You were prudent in thinking ahead about the impact of student
> evaluations on P & T. Just wondering how Erica, a grad student, proceeds
> without the golden ticket in hand.
>
> Thx,
>
> John
>
>
> On Mar 10, 2009, at 2:25 PM, Melissa Michelson wrote:
>
> Student learning *did* improve. They loved TBL and I don't think it was
> just the grading.
>
> I just think it is so hard to switch (and I have been teaching for 15
> years, so it was a big deal to re-do my syllabus), and mistakes are made
> (goodness knows some of my group activities were disasters) that I wanted to
> reduce the likelihood that students would complain.
>
> And I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Student evaluations are
> notoriously subjective and related to the grades they are getting. Being a
> little lenient when it seems necessary is, IMHO, a logical move for
> untenured folks.
>
> -Melissa
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 10:49 AM, John Fritz <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 10, 2009, at 1:05 PM, Melissa Michelson wrote:
>>
>> For those concerned about promotion/tenure review, I would recommend
>>> making grading a little more lenient while switching. Nothing makes students
>>> happier than good grades. I did this last year and got perfectly lovely
>>> student evaluations despite it being my first try with TBL. I have tenure,
>>> so it doesn't matter so much, but I didn't want a revolt.
>>> -Melissa
>>>
>>
>> Melissa,
>>
>> Sorry, but I just have to ask: did you think student learning improved
>> using TBL vs. not using it?
>>
>> If so, now that you have tenure, would you be prepared to be less lenient
>> to see how student learning is impacted by changes in your teaching? If
>> student learning doesn't improve, will you continue to use TBL?
>>
>> No body likes getting bad evaluations, but if students learn better, don't
>> we have an ethical obligation to resist (or redirect) their pressure to "not
>> teach," as some so rudely expressed to Erica? My Faculty Development Center
>> colleague Barry Casey just came back from the TBL conference, and he was
>> telling me of some engineering faculty who expressed similar pressures Erica
>> is experiencing. However, even when student grades improved, some students
>> said they didn't like TBL and wanted to "go back" to the old way of lectures
>> & papers.
>>
>> This troubles me.
>>
>> Apart from preparing students to think and cooperate in ways that will be
>> expected of them in their careers, don't we owe it to them to confront their
>> own inflexibility, so they can learn to adapt to the next new thing they
>> will inevitably face--in life generally?
>>
>> John
>>
>
>
>
|
