There is a good article by brickell et al that looks at student-selected,
random and instructor-selected team performance
Instructor-selected outperforms random out performs student-selected....the
interesting part is by how much.....instructor/criterion selected teams just
slightly outperforms random....both of which outperform student-selected by
a lot
I think the real message is anything but student-selected
jim
> From: Michael Sweet <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Michael Sweet <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 10:15:29 -0500
> To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: team transparency
>
>> Whether messy, random or structured, does team formation really matter that
>> much? Hmm?
>>
>
> I don't know of this was a serious question or tongue-in-cheek. So, just to
> be safe, I see strategic team formation as
> fundamental/critical/crucial/serious/important/essential/key.
>
> 1) You want all teams to have the resources they need to succeed.
>
> 2) You want to avoid the stereotyping (positive or negative, self- or other)
> that can occur when teams are allowed to form homogenously, which they will
> because we are attracted to people who are like us.
>
> 3) You want to avoid the coalitions that occur when teams are allowed to
> self-select (e.g., two friends choosing to be on the same team of five,
> thereby creating a "voting bloc" within that team and an insider/outsider
> dynamic that never allows the team to gel as a unit).
>
> 4) You want students to learn the life lesson of coming to see people very
> different from them as allies, team-mates, and resources.
>
> 5) You want to avoid the "leftovers" effect that occurs when self-selecting
> teams create a "last" team composed of people "no one else wanted."
>
> Now, it is true that once they graduate, these students will most likely not
> find themselves in work teams that are so carefully balanced by the powers
> that be. By the same token, they're not going to be taking a lot of
> multiple-choice tests, either. The classroom is for learning, which requires
> scaffolding, tools and experiences that are necessarily unlike what folks
> encounter in real life.
>
> -M
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Team-Based Learning [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> John Fritz
> Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 9:56 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: team transparency
>
> On Aug 30, 2010, at 10:38 AM, Levine, Ruth wrote:
>
>> The trouble with using methods like previous grades is that if the
>> students find out you did that they will always wonder (or worse--
>> find out!!) who the "smart one" and who the "dumb one" in the team
>> is and that can be counterproductive to team cohesion in the long run.
>
> I tend to agree with Ruth. After all, isn't one of the virtues of TBL
> supposed to be that it prepares students for the teams they will
> inevitably find themselves to be a part of? We don't always get to
> choose our colleagues (or neighbors). So part of life is figuring out
> how to work well in the teams we find ourselves in, whether we chose
> them or not. Transparency is fine, but in the end, if team formation
> vs. function has more to do with their success, then the big life
> lesson of TBL may not have been learned or facilitated.
>
> Whether messy, random or structured, does team formation really matter
> that much? Hmm?
>
> Just my .02.
>
> John
>
> John Fritz
> Asst. VP, Instructional Technology & New Media
> UMBC Div. of Information Technology
> 410.455.6596 | [log in to unmask] | www.umbc.edu/oit/itnm
|
