I don't allow individual appeals for two reasons:
1) I want individuals to be accountable for advocating a position. If you
allow individual appeals, they won't have an incentive to push very hard
for their answer because they can get credit without having to work with
the group to achieve a consensus. Thus, they AND the team lose out because
the struggle to reach a consensus promotes deeper understanding and greater
retention (as is evidenced by the Duke/NUS experience with allowing teams
to select one (or maybe 2--I can't remember) questions to be open-book on
the tRAT. Their results show that the concepts on the open-book questions
are less deeply understood and less likely to be recalled several months
later.
2) If you have big classes, individual appeals can be an overwhelming
amount of work for the professor WITH LITTLE, IF ANY, PAYOFF (in fact, from
a learning standpoint, I think it's counter productive. Discussion is what
promotes learning and individual appeals are INDIVIDUAL.
Larry
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Sibley, James Edward <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> Hi
>
> I think this should probably be allowed
>
> The team revisited the question, thought deeply enough about it to write
> a well written and well reasoned appeal….this is wonderful stuff
>
> The team is rallying around a team member (cohesion)….also wonderful
> stuff
>
> My only slight concern would be….if the bright student wrote the appeal
> by themselves…with no team input….then we don't get the above two
> wonderful's :-(
>
> jim
> --
> Jim Sibley
> Director
> Centre for Instructional Support
> Faculty of Applied Science
> University of British Columbia
> 2205-6250 Applied Science Lane
> Vancouver, BC Canada
> V6T 1Z4
>
> Phone 604.822.9241
> Fax 604.822.7006
>
> Email: *[log in to unmask]*
>
> Check out *http:// <http://cis.apsc.ubc.ca/>www.teambasedlearning.org*
>
>
> © Copyright 2012, Jim Sibley, All rights reserved The information
> contained in this e-mail message and any attachments (collectively
> "message") is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the
> recipient (or recipients) named above. If the reader of this message is
> not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received
> this message in error and that any review, use, distribution, or copying of
> this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error,
> please notify the sender immediately by e-mail, and delete the meesage.
>
> From: "Anderson, Douglas C" <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: "Anderson, Douglas C" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 15:26:49 -0400
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Appeals for i/tRATS
>
> I didn't specify that this couldn't be done in the syllabus because,
> honestly, I didn't think about it. But one of my teams appealed a question
> on the RAT even though the team got it right on the tRAT, because one of
> the members of the team got the question wrong on the iRAT. The student
> who got the question wrong is one of the brighter students in the class,
> and their appeal was well written and well reasoned. I'm going to allow it
> this time because I didn't address it in the syllabus. But for future
> reference, should this be allowed?
>
> --
> Douglas C. Anderson, Jr., Pharm.D., D.Ph., C.A.C.P.
> Professor and Chair
> Department of Pharmacy Practice
> Cedarville University School of Pharmacy
>
> Phil 4:13
>
--
*******************************
Larry K. Michaelsen, Professor of Management
Dockery 400G, University of Central Missouri
Warrensburg, MO 64093
660/543-4315 voice, 660/543-8465 fax
For info on:
Team-Based Learning (TBL) <www.teambasedlearning.org>
Integrative Business Experience (IBE)
<http://ucmo.edu/IBEl<http://faculty.ucmo.edu/ibe/home.html>
>
*******************************
|
