TEAMLEARNING-L Archives

Team-Based Learning

TEAMLEARNING-L@LISTS.UBC.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
8bit
Sender:
Team-Based Learning <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Brent Duncan <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 9 Dec 2011 17:04:35 -0800
MIME-version:
1.0
Content-type:
text/plain
Reply-To:
Brent Duncan <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (118 lines)
Thanks for your insights Jim.

I understand the classifications of small-group learning that L. Dee Fink 
defined: informal, cooperative, collaborative, team [With apologies. I have 
experience with other team models besides TBL, so I have difficulty giving TBL 
its own classification; so, I'll just call it "team", which includes models like TBL, 
the Phoenix Learning Team model, work teams, etc.]. I understand how each 
model has dedicated followers; but, I tend to take an contextual approach; I 
think developing understanding and competency in different models helps us to 
align practices with context; and, that our practices must be flexible enough to 
adapt to a continuously changing context and to keep students engaged. 

I think you are correct about the different products produced by TBL teams 
and Phoenix learning teams. TBL uses RATs to enhance individual accountability 
for team projects. I find this works well when converting a traditional classroom 
to more interdependent processes. However, Phoenix is a university for adult 
working professionals who typically have extensive real-world experience. 
Although I have experimented with using the RAT as one of my tools in an adult 
classroom, not too many adult professionals have experience with RATs in the 
workplace. Most are familiar with the work team processes upon which the 
Phoenix model is based.

You are absolutely correct how the Ringlemann effect drains group 
effectiveness. While TBL uses RATs and direct observation to combat social 
loafing, Phoenix learning teams establish a charter, submit team evaluations for 
each project (not just at the end of the course), keep logs of their activities, 
and are coached by the faculty. Following a fundamental concept of 
organizational psychology for reversing social loafing, students who do not 
participate in a project are supposed to be recognized and rewarded 
accordingly. In other words, no contribution means no team grade.

I cannot speak directly to a situation that you heard about from someone else; 
but, situations in which a social loafer successfully passes through the efforts 
of others typically have one of two sources at Phoenix: the faculty is failing to 
follow the program or the students are failing to hold the faculty accountable 
through their chartering process. Sometimes it can be a combination of slacking 
faculty and slacking teams. Either way, it should be an exception; I am glad to 
hear that it was "one course" out of many the student had. 

Another thing to consider is that the team grades typically represent 30% of 
the individual student score. Theoretically, a student could bail on all of the 
team assignments and still earn a C- if he or she earned perfect scores on 
individual projects. I have never seen this happen; students who bail on team 
assignments typically have other issues that contribute to an unsatisfactory 
grade. In your friend's case, the typical Phoenix course is built on a scale of 
100; so, losing 10% likely meant that the social loafer dropped an entire grade 
for not contributing to that team project.

An area where you will find similarity between the Phoenix team learning model 
and TBL is in your point about how a team's focus is to solve problems. Phoenix 
goes beyond having the students solve theoretical problems to having the 
students apply the course concepts to solve actual problems in the workplace, 
their homes, and the community. They still use the same textbooks as other 
universities; but, the Phoenix students have the added benefit of a real-world 
environment in which to apply learning. They aren’t preparing for real-world, 
they’re living it.

Also like TBL, the Phoenix learning team model facilitates student development 
through feedback; but, the feedback mechanisms go beyond scratch-off cards. 
The Phoenix system is built on a dynamical system theory model that succeeds 
by integrating multiple developmental feedback loops throughout the individual, 
team, and classroom level. Individuals contract to develop their teams, teams 
contract to develop the individuals, and faculty facilitates team activities to 
develop the entire class. Individuals, teams, and class also participate in the 
mutual evaluation process. For example, while a team is giving a presentation 
they are expected to help teach the material by directly applying it to solve a 
practical problem and present their solution to the class. The other teams act 
as an "executive team" whose job it is to evaluate the presentations, ask 
questions, and offer feedback.

Regarding TBL in Japan. I am not familiar with the higher education systems in 
Korea and Singapore, but, I would be careful about lumping them with Japan 
under the “Asia” umbrella as if they were the same. I am conducting research 
to assess the viability of a team learning model with student volunteers at a 
private university in northern Japan. This last Wednesday, the students had 
their first exposure to small-group learning, which was a packed 90-minute 
introduction to team learning that started with a RAP and ended with the first 
public speaking assignment any of the students had ever had in college.

Looking at the preliminary data today, I see that 30 out of the 32 subjects said 
a major challenge they face with team learning is overcoming their passive 
personalities. Most said that a reason they volunteered for the research is so 
they can learn how to be more assertive.

 Regardless, I fully agree with you; I believe that the problem with small-group 
learning is more with the professors and the institutions than with the 
students. Working with Japanese students in my own classroom, during guest 
lectures at Japanese universities, and in community workshops, I can usually 
get Japanese students to engage in small-group learning practices. I don’t 
usually need to get as formal as TBL because the context does not require it. 
What TBL is providing for me here is the RAP, which gives me a means to 
measure the difference between learning of individuals alone and learning of the 
same individuals in teams. Impressive results, by the way. 

I can understand how hearing about "a number of schools" in Asia might seem 
like a lot when perceived from across an ocean. Here on the ground, I am eager 
to find the undergraduate universities in Japan that are using small-group 
learning methods. I have been exchanging ideas with some scholars who are 
attempting to apply more collaborative processes in Tokyo, Kochi, and Kobe.

So far, the few scholars I've been able to find applying more collaborative 
processes are working in graduate medical programs in large metropolitan areas. 
Just as Japan is neither Korea nor Singapore, Tokyo is not Japan. Therefore, 
when I try to hold up these "big city" graduate programs as examples for rural 
undergraduate professors to follow, they defend the status quo by saying "they 
can do that because they are working with graduate students; our students 
don't have what it takes to collaborate in learning."

If you know of contacts in Japan who are using any kind of small-group learning 
method, please let me know. Like I said, I have been networking with some of 
them, but I am sure it’s not all of them. 

Thanks for your ideas.

Regards,

Brent

ATOM RSS1 RSS2