TEAMLEARNING-L Archives

Team-Based Learning

TEAMLEARNING-L@LISTS.UBC.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Team-Based Learning <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:20:32 -0500
Content-Disposition:
inline
Reply-To:
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
8bit
Subject:
From:
Bill Goffe <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=utf-8
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Comments:
To: Brent Duncan <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (97 lines)
Ah -- very interesting. I wasn't aware of much of this background. At the
end, you ask:

> So, the question becomes, does TBL allow teachers to scaffold students and 
> teams toward self-direction in learning or must the faculty keep constant 
> vigilance regardless of the context?

While I don't have data, I'd suggest a tentative "yes." Several weeks into
the semester, when they've experienced TBL and have bought into it, I'll
sometimes leave the classroom for a minute or two to get a sip of water or
to get something I left in my office. On my return the room is still abuzz
with activity and hardly a students even acknowledges my return as they're
busy working with their team. I love how TBL sets up incentives for this to
come about.

I don't know if this extends beyond my class, but I'd like to think so. It
would be really interesting and indeed useful to know.

   - Bill


Brent said:

> Thanks for your thoughts on the Hawthorne Effect, Bill. Like it came straight 
> from one of my workshops. 
> 
> I fully agree; and, as you point out, so does most of the research. My point 
> might not have been clear; I was not introducing the Hawthorne effect to 
> advocate for it, but to point out that constant faculty oversight is like an 
> application of the Hawthorne effect.
> 
> To avoid further confusion, I think it is important to differentiate between the 
> Hawthorne study conclusions and the Hawthorne effect. Management gurus 
> and practitioners still hold tight to the “happy employees are productive 
> employees” conclusion of the Hawthorne studies. However, this conclusion is 
> essentially “cow psychology”; as in, “a happy cow produces more milk.” Last 
> time I checked, most humans are a bit more complex than cows.  Contrary to 
> the conclusions of the Hawthorne studies and the assertions of some 
> organizational psychologists, most research shows that performance precedes 
> satisfaction, not the other way around. in other words, employees who 
> perform tend to be more satisfied on the job.
> 
> Rather than finding a connection between satisfaction and performance as 
> many assert, the Hawthorne studies showed that paying attention to 
> employees can result in temporary increases of productivity. MBWA serves as 
> an example of how a manager can use the Hawthorne effect to elicit 
> temporary increases in performance; “the boss is coming, look busy.” Faculty 
> oversight in TBL also serves as an example of how teachers use constant 
> oversight in attempt maintain performance levels in the classroom.
> 
> A problem with relying on attention events to motivate performance is that 
> employees performance becomes dependent on extrinsic motivational forces. 
> This is why the Hawthorne Effect is the enemy of trainers; performance will 
> usually increase through an attention event, but it is difficult to determine the 
> degree to which performance increases can be attributed to the training or to 
> the attention. If training is not reinforced or if it does not provide subjects 
> with substantial new tools for sustained performance improvements, 
> performance will likely drop in direct correlation to the performance that was 
> motivated by the attention event. Homeostasis at work; it all balances out. 
> However, this does not mean that there is anything wrong with the extrinsic 
> motivators; we just need to be aware of the psychological forces at work, and 
> make sure we are productively using the attention events to foster 
> development rather than dependence.
> 
> Regarding faculty oversight as an application of the Hawthorne effect, we 
> have to apply a certain degree of micromanagement when we are working with 
> students who have no experience in applying teamwork to learning, and with 
> students who lack the maturity for self-direction. 
> 
> However, is there ever a point at which students can develop sufficient 
> capacity and intrinsic motivation to collaborate without faculty oversight? 
> 
> In professional and adult development environments, managers and teachers 
> attempt to facilitate individuals toward independence and teams toward 
> interdependence by helping them gain skills and motivation for perpetual 
> development beyond the classroom. Fully delegating responsibility and 
> authority without any oversight is usually a mistake; but, we might find that 
> continuous attention events can ultimately hinder development of intrinsic 
> skills and motivation.
> 
> So, the question becomes, does TBL allow teachers to scaffold students and 
> teams toward self-direction in learning or must the faculty keep constant 
> vigilance regardless of the context?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Brent

-- 
Bill Goffe
Department of Economics
SUNY Oswego, 416 Mahar Hall
Oswego, NY 13126
315-312-3444(v), 315-312-5444(f)
[log in to unmask]
http://cook.rfe.org

ATOM RSS1 RSS2