First, I'd like to congratulate Karala on the creative design of the
assignment. I would have been surprised if it didn't work. In
particular, I liked the use of the post-it notes for kudos and kvetches.
Also, the dilemma she raises is a common one. I do have a couple of
suggestions for enhancing the assignment. They are as follows:
1) NUMBER OF POST-IT NOTES. I'm not sure how many you allow each team
to create but, I would limit them to one (or at most 2) of each. In my
experience, if you give them points for and allow them to create as many
as they want, they will sometimes try to get in as many "shots" as
possible by dividing up the work and having members create notes with or
without any real basis for what they are producing. By contrast, forcing
them to choose their MOST significant kudo and their most significant
kvetch (i.e., making a SPECIFIC CHOICE) has a positive effect in two
ways. One is that the discussion within the teams as they view the
"posters" is much ricer. If they are limited to picking their BEST
choice, they will naturally discuss the pros and cons related to a
viriety of possibilities. The other benefit is that, when other teams
have to pick their most significant kudo and kvetch, having a post-it
note on your chart really means something.
2) I've discovered a way to presente my point of view that doesn't come
across as being heavy handed and also adds an additional dimension to
their analysis. It involves creating a situation in which they don't
know whose work (i.e., "poster") they are evaluating. I do this by: a)
timing the assignment so that they work on the assignment during one
class and hand it in at a designated time before the class during which
they will be analyzing each others' work (hus, they can also type their
1-page explanation -- in a large and readable font, b) having them put
their team number ONLY in a designated corner of the poster which I cut
off before I post them on the wall, c) creating one (or more) posters of
my own which is/are posted -- anonamously -- along with the set of
posters from the all the teams in the class. Thus, in a class of 6
teams, they would be picking a BEST kudo and kvetch from among 7 or 8
"posters" knowing that 5 were from other teams and one or two were mine
but, not knowing whose work they commending and/or questioning. (Note:
this precludes having someone from the team standing by the poster to
answer questions -- which also forces them to be more careful in terms
of presenting their point of view.)
Sorry for the lengthy response.
Larry
>>> "Kubitz, Karla" <[log in to unmask]> 02/23/04 15:01 PM >>>
Hello all,
I've a TBL question that I'd like some advice on. I have an integrative
team assignment that my students just finished. They were to make a
concept map related to a case study that they'd read. The were required
to do the assignment as individuals prior to class. The specific
instructions are included below for any who would like to read them.
Basically, they had to try to 'think like a psychologist', to read the
case study, to identify the main problem in the case, to identify the
causes of the main problem, and to identify solutions/ interventions for
the main problem. As I look at what they did, it's pretty good, but
there are many more theories that I could have applied to the case than
they did. My question is.... should I show them 'my map'? I don't want
them to think that mine is the 'right' way to do the map. I do want to
stimulate their thinking about how to use the concepts that we've been
studying. Thoughts from any who have been using TBL longer than I have?
Thanks. Karla
Integrative Team Assignment #1/ Participant-Related Tools/ Concept Map
and Narrative
The purpose of the assignment is o provide you with the opportunity to
integrate and apply what you have learned thus far about the sport
psychology toolbox (i.e., the participant-related tools). There will be
three parts to this assignment. The first is the creation of the team
'case study' concept maps. The second is the presentation and
evaluation of the team concept maps... the 'kudos and kvetches' for the
other maps AND the 'self-evaluation/ defense' of the team map. The
third is the self-evaluation of individual learning... the individual
'one-minute paper'. Before you begin, review the handout on concept
mapping and the 'Too Good to Be True' case study (pp. 131-136 in the
case study book).
Grading Rubric
Content 02...04...06...08...10...12...14...16...18...20
Organization
01...02...03...04...05...06...07...08...09...10
Readability 01...02...03...04...05...06...07...08...09...10
Correctness 01...02...03...04...05...06...07...08...09...10
CREATION OF THE CONCEPT MAPS (45 min... posting at 1:15 for the 12:30
class; 2:45 for the 2:00 class)
Discuss the 'Too Good to Be True' case study; bringing in input from
team members with regard to the case and with regard to
participant-related tools that might be applied to the case. Use your
discussion to determine the main problem in the case study (i.e., from
the perspective of participant-related issues), to identify it's most
likely cause(s), and to propose scientifically defensible, potential
solution(s). Create your concept map (using the large sheet of paper
and the markers provided), organizing your maps so that the main problem
is in the middle, the causes are on the left, and the solutions/
theories are on the right. You may work initially with small pieces of
paper and the surface of the table so that you can refine your ideas
before you write on the large sheet of paper. Write as neatly as
possible and large enough so that someone standing in front of your
concept map (displayed on the wall) can read it without dificulty.
Rulers and other drawing aids are available. Write a one-page narrative
(on a regular size sheet of paper) explaining your concept map. Write
your narrative summaries as neatly as possible and also large enough so
that someone standing in front of your concept map can read them without
difficulty. When time is called, tape your concept maps to one of the
walls (spread them out around the room) and tape your narratives beside
your maps. Be sure your team name is on your map and on your narrative.
PRESENTATION/ EVALUATION (25 min total; 15 min kudos & kvetches/ 10 min
team self-evaluation)
One, instructor selected, member of each team will present the concept
maps. That is, they will stand next to the map to answer questions
(using the narrative summary if necessary). The other team members will
evaluate the other concept maps, identifying 'kudos' and 'kvetches'
related to the other maps. Kudos (praiseworthy aspects) and kvetches
(inaccuracies in content, inappropriate integration of course material,
inappropriate application of course material, etc) should be written
neatly (in complete sentences) on a Post-it and posted on the concept
maps in question. Both kudos and kvetches should be based on
substantive, scientifically defensible (rather than opinion-based)
issues and should be related to one of the areas of the grading rubric.
Kudos and kvetches may earn bonus points for the team posting them (up
to 5 possible points). The instructor will assess the validity of the
kudos and kvetches before bonus points are given. Upon the completion
of the evaluation period, teams will evaluate their own concept maps
using the Grading Rubric and will also evaluate (and defend against)
posted kvetches.
EVALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL LEARNING (5 min)
Write for at least 1-minute paper on the following question. What did I
learn from this assignment?
Karla A. Kubitz, Ph.D., FACSM
Associate Professor
Department of Kinesiology
8000 York Avenue
Towson University
Towson, MD 21252
410-7043168 (ph)
410-704-3912 (fax)
|
