Members of the TBL Listserv:
Thanks to all of you who have been posting to the TBL listserv.
Your experiences and concerns certainly have me thinking. I've been
using TBL for over 10 years and have been relatively successful with the
instructional strategy. However, when my colleagues (or my doctoral
students) have attempted to use TBL in their classes, their results have
not always been as positive. I would like to suggest (as I have
with my colleages) that the negative experiences and student resistance
related to TBL may actually be a function of how TBL is executed.
As several of you have articulated, students in TBL courses learn more,
are much more prepared, and are more able to engage in life-long
learning. Students need to understand that they are not
"learning it all on their own." Student complaints can be
minimized when students know that the course is relevant, the instructor
is credible, and that what they are learning ultimately matters.
Let me explain.
Prior to taking graduate classes with Larry Michaelsen in the early 1990s
I had attempted to use small groups in my teaching with horrible
results. I had read several of the studies by Johnson and Johnson
about the implementation of cooperative learning strategies but when I
tried to replicate their results, I failed. When I was
introduced to TBL (as a collaborative learning strategy) I was amazed at
the extent to which Larry Michaelsen was able to make students
accountable for reading course materials (we read three books BEFORE the
class met for the first night) and was able to maintain a high level of
discussion and interaction throughout the semester about course concepts
and how they are actually used. I tested TBL in my doctoral
dissertation, I was able to conclude that TBL is an effective strategy
for dramatically enhancing student learning. However, there are
several issues related to the instructor and the execution of the
Instructional Activity Sequence (IAS) that moderate student
success. One of the primary issues relates to instructor
competence with course materials and comfort with TBL. While content
mastery does not seem to be an issue for those of you who have frequently
posted to this listserv, it is important to note three conditions under
which TBL should not be used.
After working with several graduate students, colleagues in my department
and across the campus, and faculty at other universities, I have
discovered three conditions under which TBL should not be employed:
1) if the instructor does not have a mastery of the content;
2) if the instructor does not know how s/he wants the students to USE the
content; and
3) if the instructor is not willing to shift their role from
"dispenser of knowledge" to "course designer and manager
of overall instructional processes."
I am confident that those of you using TBL and posting to this listserv
ARE content specialists, KNOW how you want your students to apply the
content knowledge (though there may be considerable variance in how the
application-oriented activities are designed and implemented so that
students enjoy the process) and are COMFORTABLE with your "guide on
the side" role (as opposed to being the "sage on the
stage").
I would like to suggest that student resistance (challenge behavior) is a
natural consequence of group dynamics. That is, when students are
arranged in small groups, challenge behavior increases because there is
strength in numbers and students will ask questions (and challenge the
instructor) in a group when they wouldn't as separate individuals.
As challenge behavior increases, class interaction also increases.
The key to managing challenge behavior is to use positive and
productive strategies which encourage student "buy-in" and
simultaneously establish instructor credibility. If students
believe they are "teaching themselves" they will become
increasingly frustrated by the process.
TBL is designed as an interactive strategy. Unfortunately, I have
seen several instances where instructors have simply replaced their
lectures with a series of tests (IRATS and TRATS) without allowing
students the opportunity to adequately engage the content and apply it in
meaningful ways. The IAS should never replace the instructor.
If we essentialize the content and make students responsible for the
"table of contents" as opposed to the "index" of the
content they read as part of their individual study, they will be ready
to USE and APPLY the content.
The IAS allows us to determine what students already know, what they are
unclear about, and what they still need to learn in order to be able to
USE the content appropriately. Even graduate students require
guidance and clarification--especially when the course readings are dense
or unclear. Furthermore, TBL instructors/coordinators need to
establish their credibility so that students will not feel like they are
teaching themselves There is a line in the movie Good Will
Hunting that is sarcastically spoken by Matt Damon as Will Hunting to
a Harvard graduate student that summarizes how some students feel
about teaching themselves :
- . . . you dropped a hundred and fifty grand on an education you
coulda' picked up for a dollar fifty in late charges at the Public
Library.
We don't want students in any of our classes to feel this way.
In fact, I'll contend that when TBL is working, students are genuinely
enjoying the process of working in groups and engaging in
application-oriented activities. TBL instructors need to establish
credibility (through min-lectures and guided questions) as content
experts and allow students several opportunities to engage and apply the
content in enjoyable ways. Let them have fun with the
content! What students DO with the content is as important as the
content itself. As we establish credibility with our students, they
learn that they are not "on their own" and that there is
"value-added" because we are guiding the instructional
process. In a previous post I suggested that there are three
specific times during the IAS where "mini-lectures" are
appropriate and help us establish credibility and enhance student
learning:
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 individual test. Asking students questions (and
allowing them to ask me clarification questions) gives me an
opportunity to prime student 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."
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 have
recently implemented IF-AT forms for the TRATs ; 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.
Students in TBL courses learn more, are much more prepared, and
are more able to engage in life-long learning. They just need to
understand that they are not "doing it on their own."
Student complaints can be minimized when students know that the course is
relevant, that the instructor is credible, and that what they are
learning ultimately matters.
My two cents.
-Derek
Derek R. Lane
Associate Professor
University of Kentucky
At 10:02 PM 1/30/2005, Lindsay Davidson wrote:
I'm interested in your post as I
just read the narrative feedback from the
52 students (52%) in my first year Medicine Musculoskeletal course
after
my first foray into TBL over the past 4 weeks. My impression (and
that of
several of my colleagues who team-taught the group) was that the
students
were much more prepared than previous years and that we were able
to
develop topics well with in class team work. The overall impression
of
the teachers was that this was a class who asked insightful questions
and
was enjoying the material and appreciating it at a higher level
than
previous years. However clearly a proportion of the class feels
some
combination of indignation, frustration and general distaste for
the
process. As for "hate the teacher" in my case it's
"hate the
coordinator". Fortunately, my UG dean is very supportive, and
petition or
no, our school is looking for a way to reduce traditional lectures
whether
the students realize it or not. Experienced TBL teachers: is
this
common? any good ideas on how to handle this sort of
experience?
Lindsay Davidson
Queen's University
Kingston, Ontario