Hi Sandy, In my view, I think a way to make sure *individuals* are learning is to incorporate individual assignments (e.g. papers, test, even mid-terms) into the unit following the readiness assurance process and instructor feedback. Any given unit could begin with a RAP, then instructor feedback and application exercises, and conclude with an individual exam. I have been researching the discourse processes that take place in various TBL classrooms for three years now. I have recordings of the dialogues that unfold following both kinds of process: a gRAT following an iRAT and a gRAT *not* following an iRAT. When students take the iRAT first, the gRAT conversations which follow begin with a general reporting of "What did you put?" and--as differences are quickly discovered-questions about "Why did you put that?" immediately ensue, and the students are off-and-running, digging into the content and teaching each other. Most of them have thought out their answers and have reasons for having put what they did-and they are ready to talk about those reasons. However, when students did *not* take the iRAT first, the conversations were much flabbier, flatter and filled with satisficing. There are long periods of silence during which the students read the question, often followed with a very hesitant "I don't know. . . A, maybe?" These timid first-tries are often siezed by the group and rarely challenged as often as you'd like-team members just seemed relieved that somebody offered up something as an answer, and they are eager to move on and get it over with. I think the having students take iRAT first is important for a few reasons: 1) Time to read and think about the question at one's own pace (not the pace of the group first) 2) Private weighing of alternatives and committing to one answer (achieving what is called "epistemic closure") 3) This commitment triggers an emotional investment in one's answer and makes one later need a good reason to abandon it (motivating them to argue toward the best thinking). These are just some thoughts off the top of my head. You can give it a try if you like, but I think you'll find that the group discussions that do not follow an iRAT are pretty watery and unsatisfying. At least that's what I found. For what it's worth! -M ________________________________ From: Team Learning Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sandy Cook Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 4:52 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Reversing IRA/GRA - GRA/IRA Dear All, I wanted to ask everyone a question about an idea we are playing with here. With the volume of material the students need to prepare for this intensive Duke-NUS medical school basic science curriculum, it is sometimes so very difficult for them to be certain they have focused on the right content and at the right level until after the GRA section. They feel a bit demoralized at their "relatively" low IRA scores. Some of our faculty (not all) do believe that the students learn so much from the GRA part, but there is no real way to be 100% certain. If the IRA is partially designed to ensure individual accountability, but you have a group who is highly motivated to be accountable and your goal is that they actually learn it the material what would be your thoughts on reversing them sometimes? I also thought it would help the students to work as a team better in their learning - as sometimes they just study on their own and don't really take full advantage of the power of group study (and sometimes they just don't have time or want someone there to ask questions when the group cannot answer it). What if we gave a comprehensive closed book GRA - have the groups teach, learn, question together to get the answers and then do a more focused, closed book IRA on similar (but obviously changed) questions to see if they, as individuals, get it? Many of our faculty here are not completely convinced that ALL the individuals are learning in the groups, thus are skeptical of the use of the group scores to be added to student's overall scores. We want to explore ways, beyond or in addition to the regular end of module exams and standardized exams, to demonstrate that they actually have learned in the group process. Thoughts, comments? Sandy *************************************** Sandy COOK, PhD | Associate Dean, Curriculum Development | Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School Singapore | W: (65) 6516 8722| F: (65) 6227 2698 | Administrative Executive:Belinda Yeo | [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | 6516-8511