Members of the TBL Listserv:
Thanks to all of you who have been posting to the TBL listserv. Your
experiences and concerns certainly have me thinking. I've been using TBL
for over 10 years and have been relatively successful with the
instructional strategy. However, when my colleagues (or my doctoral
students) have attempted to use TBL in their classes, their results have
not always been as positive. I would like to suggest (as I have with my
colleages) that the negative experiences and student resistance related to
TBL may actually be a function of how TBL is executed.
As several of you have articulated, students in TBL courses learn more, are
much more prepared, and are more able to engage in life-long
learning. Students need to understand that they are not "learning it all
on their own." Student complaints can be minimized when students know that
the course is relevant, the instructor is credible, and that what they are
learning ultimately matters. Let me explain.
Prior to taking graduate classes with Larry Michaelsen in the early 1990s I
had attempted to use small groups in my teaching with horrible results. I
had read several of the studies by Johnson and Johnson about the
implementation of cooperative learning strategies but when I tried to
replicate their results, I failed. When I was introduced to TBL (as a
collaborative learning strategy) I was amazed at the extent to which Larry
Michaelsen was able to make students accountable for reading course
materials (we read three books BEFORE the class met for the first night)
and was able to maintain a high level of discussion and interaction
throughout the semester about course concepts and how they are actually
used. I tested TBL in my doctoral dissertation, I was able to conclude
that TBL is an effective strategy for dramatically enhancing student
learning. However, there are several issues related to the instructor and
the execution of the Instructional Activity Sequence (IAS) that moderate
student success. One of the primary issues relates to instructor
competence with course materials and comfort with TBL. While content
mastery does not seem to be an issue for those of you who have frequently
posted to this listserv, it is important to note three conditions under
which TBL should not be used.
After working with several graduate students, colleagues in my department
and across the campus, and faculty at other universities, I have discovered
three conditions under which TBL should not be employed:
1) if the instructor does not have a mastery of the content;
2) if the instructor does not know how s/he wants the students to USE the
content; and
3) if the instructor is not willing to shift their role from "dispenser of
knowledge" to "course designer and manager of overall instructional processes."
I am confident that those of you using TBL and posting to this listserv ARE
content specialists, KNOW how you want your students to apply the content
knowledge (though there may be considerable variance in how the
application-oriented activities are designed and implemented so that
students enjoy the process) and are COMFORTABLE with your "guide on the
side" role (as opposed to being the "sage on the stage").
I would like to suggest that student resistance (challenge behavior) is a
natural consequence of group dynamics. That is, when students are arranged
in small groups, challenge behavior increases because there is strength in
numbers and students will ask questions (and challenge the instructor) in a
group when they wouldn't as separate individuals. As challenge behavior
increases, class interaction also increases. The key to managing challenge
behavior is to use positive and productive strategies which encourage
student "buy-in" and simultaneously establish instructor credibility. If
students believe they are "teaching themselves" they will become
increasingly frustrated by the process.
TBL is designed as an interactive strategy. Unfortunately, I have seen
several instances where instructors have simply replaced their lectures
with a series of tests (IRATS and TRATS) without allowing students the
opportunity to adequately engage the content and apply it in meaningful
ways. The IAS should never replace the instructor.
If we essentialize the content and make students responsible for the "table
of contents" as opposed to the "index" of the content they read as part of
their individual study, they will be ready to USE and APPLY the content.
The IAS allows us to determine what students already know, what they are
unclear about, and what they still need to learn in order to be able to USE
the content appropriately. Even graduate students require guidance and
clarification--especially when the course readings are dense or
unclear. Furthermore, TBL instructors/coordinators need to establish
their credibility so that students will not feel like they are teaching
themselves There is a line in the movie Good Will Hunting that is
sarcastically spoken by Matt Damon as Will Hunting to a Harvard graduate
student that summarizes how some students feel about teaching themselves :
.. . . you dropped a hundred and fifty grand on an education you coulda'
picked up for a dollar fifty in late charges at the Public Library.
We don't want students in any of our classes to feel this way. In fact,
I'll contend that when TBL is working, students are genuinely enjoying the
process of working in groups and engaging in application-oriented
activities. TBL instructors need to establish credibility (through
min-lectures and guided questions) as content experts and allow students
several opportunities to engage and apply the content in enjoyable
ways. Let them have fun with the content! What students DO with the
content is as important as the content itself. As we establish credibility
with our students, they learn that they are not "on their own" and that
there is "value-added" because we are guiding the instructional
process. In a previous post I suggested that there are three specific
times during the IAS where "mini-lectures" are appropriate and help us
establish credibility and enhance student learning:
1) After the group appeals--during the specified Instructor Feedback
time. My lectures are usually no longer than 15 minutes. It's what I
refer to as "value-added" content that goes beyond the preliminary readings
and provides evidence of my expertise and frames examples so that students
begin synthesizing the content.
2) During the application-oriented activities -- There is a nice literature
in educational psychology regarding "Just In Time Learning." There will be
times when the students will require additional clarification or
examples. Rather than repeat the content to each individual group, I'll do
a quick 5 minute lecture to clarify some of the major issues.
3) BEFORE the individual test. Asking students questions (and allowing
them to ask me clarification questions) gives me an opportunity to prime
student thinking about the essentials of the readings in terms of the
"Table of Contents" and NOT the "Index." Asking questions before the IRAT
also allows the professor the opportunity to establish credibility and to
demonstrate to the students that they do not "have to teach themselves."
For me, the content of the instructor feedback is framed by three
sources: 1) Content that students were unclear about from the RATS. (I
use a scantron machine to score the IRATs and have recently implemented
IF-AT forms for the TRATs ; 2) Additional content (that goes beyond the
course content the students reviewed during the Individual Study); and 3)
specific connections I want them to make among the concepts.
Students in TBL courses learn more, are much more prepared, and are more
able to engage in life-long learning. They just need to understand that
they are not "doing it on their own." Student complaints can be minimized
when students know that the course is relevant, that the instructor is
credible, and that what they are learning ultimately matters.
My two cents.
-Derek
Derek R. Lane
Associate Professor
University of Kentucky
At 10:02 PM 1/30/2005, Lindsay Davidson wrote:
>I'm interested in your post as I just read the narrative feedback from the
>52 students (52%) in my first year Medicine Musculoskeletal course after
>my first foray into TBL over the past 4 weeks. My impression (and that of
>several of my colleagues who team-taught the group) was that the students
>were much more prepared than previous years and that we were able to
>develop topics well with in class team work. The overall impression of
>the teachers was that this was a class who asked insightful questions and
>was enjoying the material and appreciating it at a higher level than
>previous years. However clearly a proportion of the class feels some
>combination of indignation, frustration and general distaste for the
>process. As for "hate the teacher" in my case it's "hate the
>coordinator". Fortunately, my UG dean is very supportive, and petition or
>no, our school is looking for a way to reduce traditional lectures whether
>the students realize it or not. Experienced TBL teachers: is this
>common? any good ideas on how to handle this sort of experience?
>
>Lindsay Davidson
>Queen's University
>Kingston, Ontario
|
