Hello all,
I just got on the TBL list because a colleague forwarded me the exchange on scoring I-Rats and T-Rats. This is an interesting set of ideas, and will likely work differently for different groups.
The 50% rule (if students don't get 50% on I-RAT, s/he doesn't get team mark) feels like it is designed to ensure that the team works together to make sure everyone learns, and that individuals prepare well and don't try coasting. I've heard of this before, and I can see how it might work, but I am somewhat uncomfortable with the forceable nature of it-it seems to heighten faculty power. One of the things I love about TBL is that students have to take responsibility for their own learning, and they get direct feedback from their own performances, then have to make decisions on how to proceed vis a vis their teammates (and their own aspirations for the course). I suspect one reason for such a rule is that TBL can create a divide in grades between the students who prepared well, and those who did not: this is seen as a way to help the 'weaker' students make the right decisions.
I discovered this divide in my teaching when I began using TBL: there actually IS a bigger difference between those who excel and those who don't. However, more students do well in TBL than they did without it, which makes it all worth it. But a small number fail more miserably than they would have before, because lack of individual accountability has a higher cost, and I am no longer in between, trying to lessen the blow. My suspicion is that those who fail do so because they were able to coast a bit in pre-TBL courses because performance on learning outcomes was not as explicit as in TBL. I think the rule of 50% is designed to 'save' those students rather than letting them fail-and I'm not sure we're doing them a favor.
The other idea: to make T-RATs all formative seems to me to provide potential to undermine team cohesion. I understand the underlying sentiment: let's encourage people to collaborate for the sake of collaboration. But having a team score that counts gets students to take it seriously and to take the negotiation it takes to do good work seriously. Your serious, "A" students do not have the incentive to collaborate any more, which may reduce the quality of conversations because their grade will come from their individual work. Why spend time helping my peers when I do well on my own? The collaborative nature of a team is improved when we're all in it together and trying to reach higher together. While there is still 'force' involved (I as teacher set the rule that both scores count), the shared nature of that mark, especially since it helps everyone on the team, outweighs the use of power in my view. One thing some people (including myself) do is to let students set the ratio between I-Rat and T-Rat (within limits). Once students see the power of teams, they are almost always excited about that boost to their final grades and they lobby for the higher mark on T-Rats and activities.
My two cents!
Tine
Tine Reimers, Ph.D.
Curriculum, Teaching and Learning Specialist
Centre for Innovation and Excellence in Learning (CIEL)
Vancouver Island University
900 Fifth Street,
Nanaimo, BC V9R 5S5
250.753.3245 (ext. 2368)
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the TEAMLEARNING-L list, please click the following link:
https://lists.ubc.ca/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=TEAMLEARNING-L&A=1
Further information about the UBC Mailing Lists service can be found on the UBC IT website.
|
