UBC Mailing Lists 17.0 - TEAMLEARNING-L Archives

Dear Collaborative,

I had an interesting debate with the faculty recently for the Normal Body course (Anatomy, Physiology, MicroAnatomy) at the medical school. I thought I would share and hear if you have encountered these issues and how you (have or) might have responded.

First there was a concern expressed that including TBL scores in the final grade was just grade inflation. They believe that the scores of those who didn’t know the material were artificially inflated because the group scores were so good. Therefore not only did everyone pass (because of group scores), but that those who were struggling were given a mistaken belief that they were doing well – when in fact they had much to learn.
They also believed that by adding in the team score to the individual score we artificially narrowed the distribution of scores. For example, over a course of 4 weeks worth of group and individual work the individual scores (pre-GRA and application efforts) had a range from about 50-90%, but with the team scores added in – it became about 75-96%. This created skepticism about the claims that TBL brings up the lower end of the curve – of course it does – because of the grade inflation not because they, individually did better. And they were concerned that this created a situation where no one could fail. They are very concerned that we are masking incompetency.
Next comment was: Why not use TBL only for learning and not include any of the scores in the final marking at all? The suggestion was that the “real” grades should be based only on the traditional individual exams. This course has 3 exams that include MCQ and practical (or OSCE short answer stations where they identify components from x-rays, ct scans, body parts, slides, etc.). The questions I posed to them were: If the TBL scores did not count – would the students prepare as well (I know they wouldn’t – students already told me so)? Would the group scores be as good, since people didn’t prepare (my hypothesis – probably not)? Would the discussions be at as high a level, again, because people didn’t come prepared (and again, my hypothesis would be no)?

As an aside, I believe that most faculty readily accept that TBL is a good and fun learning strategy. But not as many believe that the team scores should be counted in the grades.
Another aside, the course is honors/pass/fail – so the difference between a 75 and an 89 is nothing – a pass is a pass.

Another part of the discussion was on how to calculate Honors – should it be only on individual work or include teamwork? Faculty believe it should be on individual work only. The school administration believes it should be on a combination of individual and team work, because teamwork is a core value. Since honors is meant to be criterion not proportional, if everyone got 90 (individually or group) then all could get honors – perhaps there is less competition and as teams they could work to help each individual try to get honors?

Most of these comments came from faculty who have not yet completed their TBL sessions – just planning for it. The faculty who have run their session, they find the sessions engaging, but a bit stressful. They feel the students are obsessed with the grades – are arguing to get points. From the outside, it looks like they are trying to get clarity and understanding from either difficult concepts, ambiguity of questions, or inconsistencies between preparation material and questions (& discussions). So, they feel they are so fixated on grades – that if we eliminated the grade pressure – then it would not be so intense – maybe, maybe not, but I still think that the level of discussion would suffer. How would I prove that?

Sandy

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