David and all:
I am most pleased that you said "the word"... in that I had never before experienced such (over?)reaction on the part of students, albeit a minority (but, sufficient numbers and direct enough to attract one's attention) from introducing a particular method into my teaching (and I have been teaching a very long time). Due to the several very helpful postings about the matter, I now realize that this kind of reaction is perhaps quite common and wide-spread... maybe TBL needs a Warning Label??... and, I am seeing ways from the various postings to diffuse and better address the problem in my next offering of the class. Thank you for that.
Due to my research focus being in behavioral/psychological economics, I think the point you make in this most recent post is also awfully important, assuming I am interpreting it correctly:
"Some students are remarkably amenable to the whole approach using TBL.... I would like to think that making a TBL team work well is just a technical matter, but I know better."
which to me means there are certain individuals, no matter how well one structures the teams, explains the procedure, etc., who will always resist the TBL approach. There is probably nothing that can be done (nor probably should be done; individuals do need the right to choose) about this, other than to be aware of it, and more consciously manage it.
On the latter, we actually did try, in the sense that we indicated early-on that we realized there were different learning styles and preferences (we offer them the opportunity to take the Myers-Briggs assessment the first week of class, and then do a class session on what it means for learning and teaching styles), so there would be variety in the way we approached the class (which is a 3-period class, all done in one evening, which also creates other challenges, in keeping attention to task). We indeed did provide variety, especially at the outset as we introduced main principles and ideas/ theories... albeit the TBL (RATs, IF AT forms, etc) approach gained a kind of momentum of its own, in that so many really liked it (including us, the TAs and me) that we did less lecturing as we went along... in retrospect, this was probably a mistake. It is now clear (we did not know it during the actual class offering), that those who absolutely dug-in on their resistance to TBL became quite irritated by the end of the semester, which blind-sided us... we were only hearing and seeing the positive feedback, and the Teams seemed to be doing just fine...smiling faces, laughing, etc., during team events during class, and better quality team produced products than from years past. Also exam grades were higher than in years past: More learning at work. We thought we really had a winner... until the end-class anonymous evaluations came in!
Next time, we will do an anonymous survey/evaluation in mid-stream... not only at the end of semester, when the hostility (does it help to use a smaller font!!??) got expressed by a few. Also, this may help the end of course evaluation: The overall "numbers evaluation" for the class (I am copying this note to my Department Head, hoping he will support higher student learning outcomes rather than higher numbers), dropped from the previous 7-offerings of it, even though in those offerings we always had used 6-7 person teams, and some team based efforts/learning, organized and balanced using Myers-Briggs personalities assessment data, majors, background training in the field, etc., to balance said teams. The big difference this time was the greatly reduced time spent in "sage on the stage/lecturing" efforts, the RATs, and the IF AT forms, and the improved problem sets/case studies (We applaud Prof. Michaelson for his insights here, on how to actually get a team focus on a case, rather than teams splitting up the tasks). So, we need to attribute at least the bulk of the reaction if not all of it, and the lower overall class evaluation, to the parts of the TBL we introduced.
Did the students also learn more? Yes, we believe they did: Even those who reacted extremely negatively likely learned more, albeit one proclaimed "Didn't learn a thing about economics using this bollshit (sic) method, actually it was horrible. I would rather listened to you talk and interact accordingly." Will we continue to work with the TBL model? Yes, definitely, we are encouraged by comments like: "Really liked the team based learning. It helped me learn more than I would have on my own." "Liked it; encouraged learning"... and, as noted above, the team products and exams were of of higher quality), although next time around we will better manage the downside.
I am wondering, too, if perhaps the reactions might be even stronger in economics classes... especially for economics majors... in that traditional economics (not mine!) classes are all about the "self-interest of the individual" (as the title of Stephen Marglin's new book proclaims, "...Thinking Like an Economist Undermines Community" ... we might say, also, undermines community learning. I don't know if the negative reaction was from the economics majors (this class is quite interdisciplinary, in that it is at the 200 level, but we always have a handful of econ majors), but they could have been... and, it could be because my approach to economics is evermore about putting community back into economy (perhaps moreso this semester than in past years offerings)... seeing economy (the individual self-interest) embedded within the community (the shared other-interest), with each interest tempering and conditioning the other... which is another reason the TBL approach appeals to me... and may not appeal to econ majors. (On a side note: The sum is greater than the sum of the parts... i.e. community is important to economy, and to learning: The team RAT scores were always higher than the average of the individual RATs, and, like Professor Michaelson shows in his work, generally also higher than the highest individual RAT score... albeit I have only 1-year of data).
Again, thank you David, and all, for the insights and help in this matter.
Gary D. Lynne, Professor
Department of Agricultural Economics and
School of Natural Resources
103B Filley
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Lincoln, NE 68583-0922
Website: http://agecon.unl.edu/lynne
Phone: 1-402-472-8281
"We are always only one failed generational transfer of knowledge away from darkest ignorance" (Herman Daly)
[log in to unmask]>">"Smith, David W" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent by: Team Learning Discussion List <[log in to unmask]> 06/18/2008 03:30 PM
|
|