I did a little quantitative analysis of factors contibuting to team success in my introductory microeconomics classes and found that in having a "smart" person (high GPA) contibuted to team success for both RATs and application activities, but the percent female, percent juniors, and team cohesiveness were also all significant factors for application activities. More juniors actually reduced team success, probably because the course is for freshmen and sophomores; juniors taking it often did not do so well in the first couple of years of college, falling behind and not getting to the economics courses - the course is designed primarily for students who only take this one economics course, so is not a prerequisite for anything else they need. Team cohesiveness was measured as the variance in the peer evaluation scores, so lower variance equals more cohesive team. It was nice to find that this variable was positively and significantly correlated with team success. I don't know how we can directly measure what Dean's mentions, Social Sensitivity, Taking Turn Ability, but surely my team cohesiveness variable gets at this indirectly.
Molly Espey, Professor
John E. Walker Department of Economics
Clemson University
Clemson, SC 29634
________________________________
From: Team-Based Learning [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dean Parmelee [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 12:09 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Response to Student's Comment
We too have not had this perspective, though we have very occasionally had
a student or two complain about a particular student who never made much
effort to change.
Random thoughts:
- using the IFAT forms AND having challenging RATs is a huge help since the super students
in the class will inevitably not know everything and the IFATs insure some humbling.
- 'distributed leadership.' Indeed, we know every team anywhere will have a student or two
who is 'superior' in intellect than the others. What Wooley, et al have shown through their
research on 'c,' collective intelligence, is that this is NOT a key deciding variable on a small
groups performance outcomes. Social Sensitivity, Turn Taking Ability, and the proportion
of females tends to drive the outcomes.
- Peer evaluation, an important component of TBL, can be 'done' in several ways. One
nice technique is to episodically have students record on an index card at the end of a
session "Who on your team TODAY contributed the most to your education and what
EXACTLY did they do?" Restrict the number of words. Collect, type out and hand to
those who earned the kudos. Save and post the comments if your system allows for
qualitative comments on student achievement. I think that the 'leaders' in Ron's teams
might not have gotten too many kudos.
Thanks for sharing Ron and having us think about this!
Dean
Dean Parmelee, M.D.
Robert J. Kegerreis Distinguished Professor of Teaching
Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
Boonshoft School of Medicine
Wright State University
Dayton, Ohio
http://www.med.wright.edu/aa/parmelee.html
[cid:5EAFB21F-4A1D-4FC3-8C22-1EBC38F44100@wright.edu]
On Sep 18, 2012, at 10:43 AM, Carson, Ron wrote:
At the end of last semester, I queried students regarding their TBL experience. I received the following comment and am curious as to what others think:
“The downfall of TBL is the team. There tend to be stronger and more advanced leaders in each group. These leaders tend to answer all the questions and leave little room for less qualified individuals to speak.”
Is this a valid comment? Have others had this type of feedback? What can be done to reduce this from happening in future TBL classes?
Thanks,
Ron
--
Ron Carson MHS, OT
Assistant Professor
Adventist Univeristy of Health Sciences<http://www.adu.edu/>
671 Winyah Drive
Orlando, FL 32803
407.303.9182 (office)
407.303.7820 (fax)
<image001.gif>
|
