Fellow Team Learning Listservers:

There is some great advice being passed around the listserv, but it is probably important to clarify some of the issues based on what we know about using groups effectively from research published by Larry (Michaelsen) and Dee (Fink) and past experiences with team learning. 

The Michaelsen, Knight, and Fink (1997) monograph is an excellent reference.  It is also based on empirical data collected over the past 20+ years.  Faculty who are having difficulty designing group activities might want to consult several of the primary articles on which the book is based.  For example, the 1997 article published in To Improve the Academy provides excellent strategies for designing effective group activities.  My favorite "white paper" about Team Learning was published by Michaelsen, Black, and Fink in 1994. Their 1996 publication about what every faculty developer needs to know about learning groups is also outstanding.  I've provided complete references at the end of this post.

One of the most critical issues for faculty who are using Team Learning is to construct application-oriented activities  that are "sufficiently difficult enough that one or two individuals, working alone, could not complete the task."   The other critical issue is to construct application-oriented activities to build team cohesion and simultaneously requires students to USE and APPLY course content.  Below, I respond to some of Karla's questions/concerns with several suggestions/thoughts and experiences based on previous posts.

      The problem was that the teams all seemed to choose the same option

Is the problem that students are choosing the same option? This doesn't seem to be a problem as long as the option they are choosing is the correct option *grin*. It is more likely that the problem is related to disappointment resulting from limited discussion. I propose two recommendations:

Recommendation One:

Make the task more difficult while retaining the three most important characteristics of team learning assignments:  same problem, specific choice, simultaneous report.

Recommendation Two:

Refocus the task so that students APPLY and SYNTHESIZE course content as opposed to simply providing evidence that they COMPREHEND the material.  In other words, reconsider the options you are providing.  The wording of the choices, or the complexity of the critical thinking required, may not be sufficiently difficult for Team Learning.  Team learning requires that students move beyond simply learning ABOUT course concepts and emphasizes that students APPLY course concepts.

By way of clarification, consider the following example:

If the instructional objective in an English composition course is for students to understand the differences between active and passive voice, there are several instructional and assessment strategies that could be employed.  Perhaps the most frequently employed strategy (at least in traditional courses) is a lecture followed by an activity where students are given a list of sentences and asked to identify which of the sentences use active voice and which use passive voice.  This strategy is generally adequate to  determine if the instructional objective was met.  The same strategy, employed in a team learning course would not be sufficient--even if we put the individual students into groups and asked them to check their answers against other group member answers.

We know that if students are assembled in groups after individually completing the task, the likelihood that each of the groups would have the "correct" answer would improve considerably because the interaction in the groups provide individuals with the ability to identify contradictions and clarify specific problems.  (The assumption is that at least one individual in the group understands the difference between active and passive voice and will prevent the rest of the group from "pooling ignorance.")  If the groups are then asked to report their conclusions, there would be very little to discuss as a class because the interaction and discussion has already occurred in the small groups. 

In his Team Learning Workshops,  Larry Michaelsen provides the following example to demonstrate the importance of wording team application-oriented assignments for optimal learning effects. Larry asks participants to select the best possible wording of an assignment that would allow a professor to be certain that "students can discriminate between effective and ineffective use of active vs. passive “voice” in written communication  

1 ) Identify the mistakes that writers most frequently make that detract from their efforts to write in active “voice.”

2) Read the following passage and identify a sentence that is a clear example of: a) active, and b) passive “voice.”

3) Read the following passage and identify the sentence in which passive “voice” is used most appropriately.

4) Give a lecture on how to determine effective and ineffective use of active vs. passive “voice” in written communication.

The best possible wording is provided in option 3.  By  using words such as THE SENTENCE and MOST APPROPRIATELY, students are required to understand active and passive voice, apply what they know about inappropriate and appropriate use of active and passive voice, and critically evaluate all of the sentences to determine which use of passive voice is used MOST APPROPRIATELY.  These seem like subtle differences but they make a significant difference in terms of authentic classroom learning.

Even if  all of the teams are consistently choosing the same option--and the option they are all choosing is correct, ask them to defend their answer.  They may all agree with the choice but not provide an informed rationale for their choice--this will encourage interaction from other groups and clarification from the instructor.  Faculty want to create a positive supportive climate that is comparative, not competitive.

The second is related to my not knowing when and how exactly to fit in the 'bits of lecturing' that I'd still like to do

We all still need to do some lecturing because we are the content experts.  I am a better teacher when I lecture because I can sequence the material in a logical progression and have examples and additional resources prepared.  HOWEVER, my students learn more with team learning because they are actively involved and accountable for the content.  Overall,  I agree with David Smith's advice that lectures should occur "at the times when faculty think they are needed."  Although I would submit that within the Instructional Activity Sequence there are three specific times when feedback is most appropriate.:

1) After the group appeals--during the specified Instructor Feedback time.  My lectures are usually no longer than 15 minutes.  It's what I refer to as "value-added" content that goes beyond the preliminary readings and provides evidence of my expertise and frames examples so that students begin synthesizing the content. 

2) During the application-oriented activities -- There is a nice literature in educational psychology regarding "Just In Time Learning."  There will be times when the students will require additional clarification or examples.  Rather than repeat the content to each individual group, I'll do a quick 5 minute lecture to clarify some of the major issues. 
  
3)  Before the first individual test.  My strategy is similar to David Smith's.  I've talked with Larry about my strategy to ask students questions BEFORE the IRAT.   His argument is that Team Learning (as an instructional strategy) should be ADAPTED, not ADOPTED.   Asking students questions (and allowing them to ask me clarification questions)  gives me an opportunity to prime students into thinking about the essentials of the readings in terms of the "Table of Contents" and NOT the "Index." Asking questions before the IRAT also allows the professor the opportunity to establish credibility and to demonstrate to the students that they do not "have to teach themselves."

I'm not sure how I feel about cancelling the IRAT.  The IRAT makes students individually accountable and gives the teams a good understanding of who is understanding and who in the group needs additional information.  Personally,  would not cancel IRATs.

For me, the content of the instructor feedback is framed by three sources:  1)  Content that students were unclear about from the RATS.  (I use a scantron machine to score the IRATs and the TRATs because it provides an overall item analysis which clearly shows the questions with which most students had difficulty); 2)  Additional content (that goes beyond the course content the students reviewed during the Individual Study); and 3) specific connections I want them to make among the concepts.   

     When I interrupt their work on appeals, I ended up doing the work they should have been doing.  When I waited until they were done, they seemed bored and ready to leave (... we've done our work for the day...).  Any suggestions/ thoughts/ experiences? 

I'll usually give the students 5-10 minutes to discuss strategies for writing the appeals and to identify specific evidence from the readings/textbook to support the appeal(s).  I do NOT allow sufficient time for the groups to write the appeals in class or to present oral appeals.  One individual will actually write the appeal anyway.  The group may divide and conquer if there is more than one appeal to write, but one individual does the writing.  I do not provide the evidence for the appeals--this is the work students need to be doing.  We don't want to grade our own work.

Students should be even more engaged after the TRATs because they are beginning to make connections between concepts and understand how what they are learning is related to other concepts they have been learning.  I like to preview the application-oriented activities and give the groups a taste of what is in store for the next class period.  Only 25-30% of the curriculum should be devoted to the IRAT, TRAT, Appeals, and Instructor feedback.  The remaining 70-75% should be devoted to the application-oriented activities. The APPLICATION-ORIENTED ACTIVITIES are the most important part of the curriculum in Team Learning.

Sorry about the long post.

-Derek


***********************************
Derek R. Lane, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Communication
University of Kentucky
[log in to unmask]

***********************************

 


REFERENCES

Michaelsen, L. K., & Black, R. H. (1994). Building learning teams: The key to harnessing the
            power of small groups in higher education, Collaborative Learning:  A Sourcebook for Higher Education (Vol. 2).     State College,  PA: National Center for Teaching, Learning & Assessment

Michaelsen, L.K., Fink, L. D., & Knight, A. (1997).  Designing effective group activities:
          Lessons for classroom teaching and faculty development To Improve the Academy, Vol. 16.  Stillwater, OK:  New Forums Press

Michaelsen, L.K., Knight, A. B., & Fink, L. D. (1997).  Team-Based Learning: A Transformative Use of Small Groups. 
        Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers (Greenwood Press).     http://www.greenwood.com/books/BookDetail.asp?dept_id=1&sku=H863

Michaelsen, L.K., Fink, L. D., & Black, R. H. (1996). What every faculty developer needs to know about learning
        groups.  In L. Richlin (Ed.)., To Improve the Academy, Vol. 15 (pp. 31-57).  Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press



At 12:15 PM 8/17/2004, Smith, David W wrote:
      The problem was that the teams all seemed to choose the same option
 

 
The second is related to my not knowing when and how exactly to fit in the 'bits of lecturing' that I'd still like to do
 
There is evidence that remembering falls off very rapidly after the first few minutes of lecturing.  (This is referenced in Wilbur McKeachie's book "Teaching Tips.")  So, despite how we all learned (or didn't), lectures should be short, or, at least, broken up into parts of no more than 20 minutes.  Fit in 10-15 minute lectures at the times you think they are needed. 
 
(and that the students still seem to want)
 
I don't know why this is, exactly.  I teach statistics and the whole trend of the last 20 years in this and mathematics has been against lecturing and toward activities, eg, doing problems, discussing, writing, presenting results.  When I think back on my own teachers, the ones I learned the most from had students doing more things in class and interacted more with students in class (even in a room with 80 students).  This mostly focused on specifics, and in math that usually means problems.  (I include advanced mathematics, not only math through calculus.)  This is what mathematicians do with each other every day, at meetings and back home.  Lots of mistakes get made, and lots of trial and error occurs.  At the end of the day, knowledge is advanced.
 
Students want a lot more lecturing than TBL allows (versus problem-oriented activities of all sorts).  Learning in statistics and mathematics is shown by doing, not by listening.  Sometimes I can tell people useful things from my accumulated experience as a statistical consultant for almost 30 years.  (I usually have a handout that is somewhat more formally written than my lecture.)  This may not resemble in any way the students' notion of a lecture. 
 
When lectures are done, I have no information about what students have learned.  When students have done team activities and reported them, then I have a much better idea what they have learned.  By this criteria, lectures are a big loser and TBL, with demonstrations of learning, is a big winner.  The students win because they have shown me how to do the kinds of work that they will have to do on the exams. 
 
I teach students with all backgrounds, but they all have a previous college degree.  They have all developed strong views of how classes should be taught, including what lectures do.  I suspect that  some of them expect the lectures will give them clear, sharp guidance as to what they must know (that is, memorize) to be successful on exams.  With statistics or mathematics, being successful means being able to do problems, while knowing facts is of relatively little use.  It is clear to me that many students don't know this when they start my course.  I think they expect lectures that will solve their problems.  I, by contrast, expect them to solve problems themselves (and active learning methods are highly effective at this). 
 
    I usually allowed them to ask one question per team before the IRAT (most often they didn't ask any questions... not sure why... seems like they would). 
 
This is the most variable thing in my class.  If students ask questions at the start, then they have done their work to prepare and sometimes I cancel the IRAT.  I would think they would catch on and come with plenty of questions ready, but they don't seem to.  You could give credit for asking a question that is at least as good as any question on the RAT.  If someone asks a question that in on my RAT, I tell them the answer.  The whole class starts to see some benefit in asking questions beforehand.
 
     When I interrupt their work on appeals, I ended up doing the work they should have been doing.  When I waited until they were done, they seemed bored and ready to leave (... we've done our work for the day...).  Any suggestions/ thoughts/ experiences? 
 
I give the groups an answer key and have them grade their own TRATs when they are done.  You don't need to hand out a paper key, but if you do, you can give it to each group when they finish their TRAT.  This gives the group some followup work besides appeals.  You could have them find the information that supports the standard answer.  After that is all over, give them a fixed time to write an appeal.  Better, have the appeals handed in at the end of class or at the next class, but don't set aside time for them at all.  Best of all, have some team activities that must be started as soon as the TRATs are done.
 
Regards,
 
David Smith
 

David W. Smith, Ph.D., M.P.H.
Associate Professor, Biostatistics
The University of Texas School of Public Health
San Antonio Branch Campus
voice: (210) 562-5512
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
  or [log in to unmask]
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Team Learning Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kubitz, Karla
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 12:50 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Some TBL questions...
Hello all,
As I look to my second semester using TBL, I've a couple of questions that I thought I'd like to pose to the list. 
 
The first is related to a problem that I seemed to have with my topic specific assignments (the activities that follow a RAT and challenge the teams to apply the material in it).  The problem was that the teams all seemed to choose the same option from among the various options I'd provided (e.g., choose the individual from among those described that would be most likely to adhere to an exercise program... or choose the athlete from among those described that you would most likely recruit for your sport team).  Of course, when they did that, there was little further discussion of the problem... sort of seemed like they saw the activity as 'done/ problem solved'.  I realize that I may need to tweak my options a bit to somehow make this less likely to happen.  At least I now know which option they all tend to choose.  However, it also occured to me that I could change the assignment... make it more focused on defending an assigned choice instead of making a choice.  I'm not sure though whether it'd still fit the TBL approach or not.  Therein lies the question.  
 
The second is related to my not knowing when and how exactly to fit in the 'bits of lecturing' that I'd still like to do (and that the students still seem to want) after the RATs.  Here's how I did things last semester.  The students entered and sat with their teams.  I usually allowed them to ask one question per team before the IRAT (most often they didn't ask any questions... not sure why... seems like they would).  Then they'd take the IRAT.  When the team members were done with the IRAT, they'd put their scantrons in the folder and turn the folder in to me and begin on the TRAT.  While the teams were working on the TRAT, I'd go downstairs briefly and run the IRATs through the scantrons so that they'd be graded before the teams took them back.  When the teams'd finished the TRAT, they'd post their team score on the board (along with the items they'd missed as a team) and they'd collect their folders and begin working on appeals.  Sometimes I'd interrupt their work on appeals to go over a few things related to the items they missed as teams.  Sometimes I'd wait until they were done with appeals to do it.  Sometimes I'd wait until the next class period (before the topic specific assignments).  None of the above approaches seemed ideal.  When I interrupt their work on appeals, I ended up doing the work they should have been doing.  When I waited until they were done, they seemed bored and ready to leave (... we've done our work for the day...).  Any suggestions/ thoughts/ experiences? 
 
Thanks.  Karla       
Karla A. Kubitz, Ph.D., FACSM
Dept. of Kinesiology
Towson University
Towson, MD 21252
410-704-3168 (office)
410-704-3912 (fax)