Dr. O’Malley -
Dr. Burns uses the team processing activity with a very different population and in a wider array of settings than I. He can send along more info about his use.
I teach somewhat large (N=140 students) sections of Introduction to Psychology. Most students are first- or second-year undergraduates, have no background in the discipline, are taking the course for general education credit, and are unlikely to ever take another psychology course. There are five major team activities in my class; teams complete the team processing task after the first four team activities. The complete the team processing in class prior to receiving feedback from me on their performance on the team activity. Teams spend 15-20 minutes on their first team processing task but complete the subsequent three in ten minutes or less.
I allow students to set their own grade weights for the class every term. That said, there’s little meaningful variance across semesters. I set the points earned via the team processing tasks at 15% of their team grade. Students generally set team performance at 35-40% of their final grade.
I also require students to earn at least 70% of the individual points in order to have their team’s performance included in their final grade. As I explain to students, if a given teammate hasn’t earned at least 70% of the individual points, there is little chance he/she has made a substantive contribution to the team. Frankly, that policy does more to motivate students than the team processing task.
I still collect summative peer evaluations (using TEAMMATES) at the end of the term. The items on the summative peer evaluation echo those on the team processing task. The peer evaluations are worth 15% of everyone's final grade.
I used to use formative and summative (individual) peer evaluations. The problem I faced was that teammates who received poor ratings rarely changed their behavior. As a social psychologist, I know that humans are generally terrible at behavior change so I didn’t blame the students. If we want students to improve their ability to work as a team, it made intuitive sense to give them practice thinking about how they worked together as a team, rather than as a collection of individuals. The team processing task also eliminates the possibility that students can “dodge” giving feedback via comments like “keep up the good work.”
With seven units in your course, it might be overkill to use the team processing task after every unit. Could you front-load the semester, using a team processing task after the first four units, when teams are still actively cohering?
Have a great evening,
lm
Laura Madson, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Psychology
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM 88003
[log in to unmask]
lauramadson.com
(575) 646-6207
> On May 24, 2018, at 11:00 AM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> Hello.. Your idea feels intuitively better than the peer assessment approach I have used in the past. If you have a moment, I have a few questions
> Do you find that this process works to motivate poorly prepared students to prepare more in the future? (I teach an evening grad school class for working professionals. I need a process that students will trust to be fair and not coddle free riders.)
> How many units does your class have and how much class time do you allot for these reflections? (My class has seven units. If I weighted each reflection at 2 points and gave the teams 10 minutes each time, that would be 14 points and 70 minutes of class time. That seems like a lot. Do you have any suggestions?)
> What percentage of your grading system reflects team work versus individual work?
> Thank you.
> Marianne O’Malley
>
>
> From: Team-Based Learning <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of Laura Madson
> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 9:15 AM
> To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: debriefing
>
> Hi again -
> Regarding the discussion on the importance of debriefing, Dr. Chris Burns and I both use a team processing tool after each major team activity in lieu of formative (individual) peer evaluations (see attached for an example).
>
> We’ve both found that focusing formative feedback on the team, rather than on individuals, offers several advantages:
> 1. low stakes, easy, introduction to giving and receiving peer evaluation/feedback
> 2. emphasizes team skills, not individual skills
> 3. makes it explicit that students are supposed to be developing teamwork skills and what these skills are
> 4. allows rapid self-correction of problems
> 5. allows rapid faculty identification of problem teams
>
> Just in case anyone is interested, I also attached one of the papers from the recent special issue of the American Psychologist on teamwork mentioned by Dr. Coleman (I’m a psychologist so it was easy for me to get access).
>
> Have a lovely day,
> lm
>
>
> To unsubscribe from the TEAMLEARNING-L list, please click here. <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.
>
########################################################################
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.
|
