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)