Fellow Team Learning Listservers:
There is some great advice being passed around the listserv, but it is
probably important to clarify some of the issues based on what we know
about using groups effectively from research published by Larry
(Michaelsen) and Dee (Fink) and past experiences with team learning.
The Michaelsen, Knight, and Fink (1997) monograph is an excellent
reference. It is also based on empirical data collected over the past 20+
years. Faculty who are having difficulty designing group activities might
want to consult several of the primary articles on which the book is
based. For example, the 1997 article published in To Improve the Academy
provides excellent strategies for designing effective group activities. My
favorite "white paper" about Team Learning was published by Michaelsen,
Black, and Fink in 1994. Their 1996 publication about what every faculty
developer needs to know about learning groups is also outstanding. I've
provided complete references at the end of this post.
One of the most critical issues for faculty who are using Team Learning is
to construct application-oriented activities that are "sufficiently
difficult enough that one or two individuals, working alone, could not
complete the task." The other critical issue is to construct
application-oriented activities to build team cohesion and simultaneously
requires students to USE and APPLY course content. Below, I respond to
some of Karla's questions/concerns with several suggestions/thoughts and
experiences based on previous posts.
The problem was that the teams all seemed to choose the same option
Is the problem that students are choosing the same option? This doesn't
seem to be a problem as long as the option they are choosing is the correct
option *grin*. It is more likely that the problem is related to
disappointment resulting from limited discussion. I propose two
recommendations:
Recommendation One:
Make the task more difficult while retaining the three most important
characteristics of team learning assignments: same problem, specific
choice, simultaneous report.
Recommendation Two:
Refocus the task so that students APPLY and SYNTHESIZE course content as
opposed to simply providing evidence that they COMPREHEND the material. In
other words, reconsider the options you are providing. The wording of the
choices, or the complexity of the critical thinking required, may not be
sufficiently difficult for Team Learning. Team learning requires that
students move beyond simply learning ABOUT course concepts and emphasizes
that students APPLY course concepts.
By way of clarification, consider the following example:
If the instructional objective in an English composition course is for
students to understand the differences between active and passive voice,
there are several instructional and assessment strategies that could be
employed. Perhaps the most frequently employed strategy (at least in
traditional courses) is a lecture followed by an activity where students
are given a list of sentences and asked to identify which of the sentences
use active voice and which use passive voice. This strategy is generally
adequate to determine if the instructional objective was met. The same
strategy, employed in a team learning course would not be sufficient--even
if we put the individual students into groups and asked them to check their
answers against other group member answers.
We know that if students are assembled in groups after individually
completing the task, the likelihood that each of the groups would have the
"correct" answer would improve considerably because the interaction in the
groups provide individuals with the ability to identify contradictions and
clarify specific problems. (The assumption is that at least one individual
in the group understands the difference between active and passive voice
and will prevent the rest of the group from "pooling ignorance.") If the
groups are then asked to report their conclusions, there would be very
little to discuss as a class because the interaction and discussion has
already occurred in the small groups.
In his Team Learning Workshops, Larry Michaelsen provides the following
example to demonstrate the importance of wording team application-oriented
assignments for optimal learning effects. Larry asks participants to select
the best possible wording of an assignment that would allow a professor to
be certain that "students can discriminate between effective and
ineffective use of active vs. passive "voice" in written communication
1 ) Identify the mistakes that writers most frequently make that detract
from their efforts to write in active "voice."
2) Read the following passage and identify a sentence that is a clear
example of: a) active, and b) passive "voice."
3) Read the following passage and identify the sentence in which passive
"voice" is used most appropriately.
4) Give a lecture on how to determine effective and ineffective use of
active vs. passive "voice" in written communication.
The best possible wording is provided in option 3. By using words such as
THE SENTENCE and MOST APPROPRIATELY, students are required to understand
active and passive voice, apply what they know about inappropriate and
appropriate use of active and passive voice, and critically evaluate all of
the sentences to determine which use of passive voice is used MOST
APPROPRIATELY. These seem like subtle differences but they make a
significant difference in terms of authentic classroom learning.
Even if all of the teams are consistently choosing the same option--and
the option they are all choosing is correct, ask them to defend their
answer. They may all agree with the choice but not provide an informed
rationale for their choice--this will encourage interaction from other
groups and clarification from the instructor. Faculty want to create a
positive supportive climate that is comparative, not competitive.
The second is related to my not knowing when and how exactly to fit in the
'bits of lecturing' that I'd still like to do
We all still need to do some lecturing because we are the content
experts. I am a better teacher when I lecture because I can sequence the
material in a logical progression and have examples and additional
resources prepared. HOWEVER, my students learn more with team learning
because they are actively involved and accountable for the
content. Overall, I agree with David Smith's advice that lectures should
occur "at the times when faculty think they are needed." Although I would
submit that within the Instructional Activity Sequence there are three
specific times when feedback is most appropriate.:
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 first individual test. My strategy is similar to David
Smith's. I've talked with Larry about my strategy to ask students
questions BEFORE the IRAT. His argument is that Team Learning (as an
instructional strategy) should be ADAPTED, not ADOPTED. Asking students
questions (and allowing them to ask me clarification questions) gives me
an opportunity to prime students into 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."
I'm not sure how I feel about cancelling the IRAT. The IRAT makes students
individually accountable and gives the teams a good understanding of who is
understanding and who in the group needs additional
information. Personally, would not cancel IRATs.
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 the TRATs because it provides
an overall item analysis which clearly shows the questions with which most
students had difficulty); 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.
When I interrupt their work on appeals, I ended up doing the work
they should have been doing. When I waited until they were done, they
seemed bored and ready to leave (... we've done our work for the
day...). Any suggestions/ thoughts/ experiences?
I'll usually give the students 5-10 minutes to discuss strategies for
writing the appeals and to identify specific evidence from the
readings/textbook to support the appeal(s). I do NOT allow sufficient time
for the groups to write the appeals in class or to present oral
appeals. One individual will actually write the appeal anyway. The group
may divide and conquer if there is more than one appeal to write, but one
individual does the writing. I do not provide the evidence for the
appeals--this is the work students need to be doing. We don't want to
grade our own work.
Students should be even more engaged after the TRATs because they are
beginning to make connections between concepts and understand how what they
are learning is related to other concepts they have been learning. I like
to preview the application-oriented activities and give the groups a taste
of what is in store for the next class period. Only 25-30% of the
curriculum should be devoted to the IRAT, TRAT, Appeals, and Instructor
feedback. The remaining 70-75% should be devoted to the
application-oriented activities. The APPLICATION-ORIENTED ACTIVITIES are
the most important part of the curriculum in Team Learning.
Sorry about the long post.
-Derek
***********************************
Derek R. Lane, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Communication
University of Kentucky
[log in to unmask]
***********************************
REFERENCES
Michaelsen, L. K., & Black, R. H. (1994). Building learning teams: The key
to harnessing the
power of small groups in higher education, Collaborative
Learning: A Sourcebook for Higher Education (Vol. 2). State
College, PA: National Center for Teaching, Learning & Assessment
Michaelsen, L.K., Fink, L. D., & Knight, A. (1997). Designing effective
group activities:
Lessons for classroom teaching and faculty development To
Improve the Academy, Vol. 16. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press
Michaelsen, L.K., Knight, A. B., & Fink, L. D. (1997). Team-Based
Learning: A Transformative Use of Small Groups.
Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers (Greenwood
Press). http://www.greenwood.com/books/BookDetail.asp?dept_id=1&sku=H863
Michaelsen, L.K., Fink, L. D., & Black, R. H. (1996). What every faculty
developer needs to know about learning
groups. In L. Richlin (Ed.)., To Improve the Academy, Vol. 15
(pp. 31-57). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press
At 12:15 PM 8/17/2004, Smith, David W wrote:
> The problem was that the teams all seemed to choose the same option
>
>
>
>The second is related to my not knowing when and how exactly to fit in the
>'bits of lecturing' that I'd still like to do
>
>There is evidence that remembering falls off very rapidly after the first
>few minutes of lecturing. (This is referenced in Wilbur McKeachie's book
>"Teaching Tips.") So, despite how we all learned (or didn't), lectures
>should be short, or, at least, broken up into parts of no more than 20
>minutes. Fit in 10-15 minute lectures at the times you think they are
>needed.
>
>(and that the students still seem to want)
>
>I don't know why this is, exactly. I teach statistics and the whole trend
>of the last 20 years in this and mathematics has been against lecturing
>and toward activities, eg, doing problems, discussing, writing, presenting
>results. When I think back on my own teachers, the ones I learned the
>most from had students doing more things in class and interacted more with
>students in class (even in a room with 80 students). This mostly focused
>on specifics, and in math that usually means problems. (I include
>advanced mathematics, not only math through calculus.) This is what
>mathematicians do with each other every day, at meetings and back
>home. Lots of mistakes get made, and lots of trial and error occurs. At
>the end of the day, knowledge is advanced.
>
>Students want a lot more lecturing than TBL allows (versus
>problem-oriented activities of all sorts). Learning in statistics and
>mathematics is shown by doing, not by listening. Sometimes I can tell
>people useful things from my accumulated experience as a statistical
>consultant for almost 30 years. (I usually have a handout that is
>somewhat more formally written than my lecture.) This may not resemble in
>any way the students' notion of a lecture.
>
>When lectures are done, I have no information about what students have
>learned. When students have done team activities and reported them, then
>I have a much better idea what they have learned. By this criteria,
>lectures are a big loser and TBL, with demonstrations of learning, is a
>big winner. The students win because they have shown me how to do the
>kinds of work that they will have to do on the exams.
>
>I teach students with all backgrounds, but they all have a previous
>college degree. They have all developed strong views of how classes
>should be taught, including what lectures do. I suspect that some of
>them expect the lectures will give them clear, sharp guidance as to what
>they must know (that is, memorize) to be successful on exams. With
>statistics or mathematics, being successful means being able to do
>problems, while knowing facts is of relatively little use. It is clear to
>me that many students don't know this when they start my course. I think
>they expect lectures that will solve their problems. I, by contrast,
>expect them to solve problems themselves (and active learning methods are
>highly effective at this).
>
> I usually allowed them to ask one question per team before the IRAT
> (most often they didn't ask any questions... not sure why... seems like
> they would).
>
>This is the most variable thing in my class. If students ask questions at
>the start, then they have done their work to prepare and sometimes I
>cancel the IRAT. I would think they would catch on and come with plenty
>of questions ready, but they don't seem to. You could give credit for
>asking a question that is at least as good as any question on the RAT. If
>someone asks a question that in on my RAT, I tell them the answer. The
>whole class starts to see some benefit in asking questions beforehand.
>
> When I interrupt their work on appeals, I ended up doing the work
> they should have been doing. When I waited until they were done, they
> seemed bored and ready to leave (... we've done our work for the
> day...). Any suggestions/ thoughts/ experiences?
>
>I give the groups an answer key and have them grade their own TRATs when
>they are done. You don't need to hand out a paper key, but if you do, you
>can give it to each group when they finish their TRAT. This gives the
>group some followup work besides appeals. You could have them find the
>information that supports the standard answer. After that is all over,
>give them a fixed time to write an appeal. Better, have the appeals
>handed in at the end of class or at the next class, but don't set aside
>time for them at all. Best of all, have some team activities that must be
>started as soon as the TRATs are done.
>
>Regards,
>
>David Smith
>
>
>David W. Smith, Ph.D., M.P.H.
>Associate Professor, Biostatistics
>The University of Texas School of Public Health
>San Antonio Branch Campus
>voice: (210) 562-5512
>e-mail: [log in to unmask]
> or [log in to unmask]
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Team Learning Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>On Behalf Of Kubitz, Karla
>Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 12:50 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Some TBL questions...
>
>Hello all,
>As I look to my second semester using TBL, I've a couple of questions that
>I thought I'd like to pose to the list.
>
>The first is related to a problem that I seemed to have with my topic
>specific assignments (the activities that follow a RAT and challenge the
>teams to apply the material in it). The problem was that the teams all
>seemed to choose the same option from among the various options I'd
>provided (e.g., choose the individual from among those described that
>would be most likely to adhere to an exercise program... or choose the
>athlete from among those described that you would most likely recruit for
>your sport team). Of course, when they did that, there was little further
>discussion of the problem... sort of seemed like they saw the activity as
>'done/ problem solved'. I realize that I may need to tweak my options a
>bit to somehow make this less likely to happen. At least I now know which
>option they all tend to choose. However, it also occured to me that I
>could change the assignment... make it more focused on defending an
>assigned choice instead of making a choice. I'm not sure though whether
>it'd still fit the TBL approach or not. Therein lies the question.
>
>The second is related to my not knowing when and how exactly to fit in the
>'bits of lecturing' that I'd still like to do (and that the students still
>seem to want) after the RATs. Here's how I did things last semester. The
>students entered and sat with their teams. I usually allowed them to ask
>one question per team before the IRAT (most often they didn't ask any
>questions... not sure why... seems like they would). Then they'd take the
>IRAT. When the team members were done with the IRAT, they'd put their
>scantrons in the folder and turn the folder in to me and begin on the
>TRAT. While the teams were working on the TRAT, I'd go downstairs briefly
>and run the IRATs through the scantrons so that they'd be graded before
>the teams took them back. When the teams'd finished the TRAT, they'd post
>their team score on the board (along with the items they'd missed as a
>team) and they'd collect their folders and begin working on
>appeals. Sometimes I'd interrupt their work on appeals to go over a few
>things related to the items they missed as teams. Sometimes I'd wait
>until they were done with appeals to do it. Sometimes I'd wait until the
>next class period (before the topic specific assignments). None of the
>above approaches seemed ideal. When I interrupt their work on appeals, I
>ended up doing the work they should have been doing. When I waited until
>they were done, they seemed bored and ready to leave (... we've done our
>work for the day...). Any suggestions/ thoughts/ experiences?
>
>Thanks. Karla
>Karla A. Kubitz, Ph.D., FACSM
>Dept. of Kinesiology
>Towson University
>Towson, MD 21252
>410-704-3168 (office)
>410-704-3912 (fax)
>
|
