I did plan ahead somewhat. Every other Friday was movie day and everyone who attended and filled out an "active viewing worksheet" got a point. That's something new. But then during the term when a group activity turned out to be a dud I would give very easy grades on it. So, I think in the future I would be less lenient if only because the group activities would, I hope, be better. I will probably keep the movie idea for MWF courses. It gives students the option of a day off if they're doing well, and that makes everyone happy. -Melissa On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 12:26 PM, John Fritz <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Glad to hear it, Melissa. > And I think what you did was just fine. Sorry if it sounded otherwise. > > But I'm curious: you anticipated possible resistance, enough to plan ahead > by being more lenient as you first introduced TBL. How did you know this > might be an issue? Did other colleagues who used TBL tip you off? Had you > experimented with other teaching changes before and encountered resistance? > And since students did love TBL and learning improved, what are your > thoughts about gradually being less lenient on the grading the next time you > use it? > > Please don't think I'm singling you out: I don't mean to. But it does make > me wonder how tenure (or the lack of it) continues to influence innovation > in teaching. You were prudent in thinking ahead about the impact of student > evaluations on P & T. Just wondering how Erica, a grad student, proceeds > without the golden ticket in hand. > > Thx, > > John > > > On Mar 10, 2009, at 2:25 PM, Melissa Michelson wrote: > > Student learning *did* improve. They loved TBL and I don't think it was > just the grading. > > I just think it is so hard to switch (and I have been teaching for 15 > years, so it was a big deal to re-do my syllabus), and mistakes are made > (goodness knows some of my group activities were disasters) that I wanted to > reduce the likelihood that students would complain. > > And I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Student evaluations are > notoriously subjective and related to the grades they are getting. Being a > little lenient when it seems necessary is, IMHO, a logical move for > untenured folks. > > -Melissa > > > > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 10:49 AM, John Fritz <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> On Mar 10, 2009, at 1:05 PM, Melissa Michelson wrote: >> >> For those concerned about promotion/tenure review, I would recommend >>> making grading a little more lenient while switching. Nothing makes students >>> happier than good grades. I did this last year and got perfectly lovely >>> student evaluations despite it being my first try with TBL. I have tenure, >>> so it doesn't matter so much, but I didn't want a revolt. >>> -Melissa >>> >> >> Melissa, >> >> Sorry, but I just have to ask: did you think student learning improved >> using TBL vs. not using it? >> >> If so, now that you have tenure, would you be prepared to be less lenient >> to see how student learning is impacted by changes in your teaching? If >> student learning doesn't improve, will you continue to use TBL? >> >> No body likes getting bad evaluations, but if students learn better, don't >> we have an ethical obligation to resist (or redirect) their pressure to "not >> teach," as some so rudely expressed to Erica? My Faculty Development Center >> colleague Barry Casey just came back from the TBL conference, and he was >> telling me of some engineering faculty who expressed similar pressures Erica >> is experiencing. However, even when student grades improved, some students >> said they didn't like TBL and wanted to "go back" to the old way of lectures >> & papers. >> >> This troubles me. >> >> Apart from preparing students to think and cooperate in ways that will be >> expected of them in their careers, don't we owe it to them to confront their >> own inflexibility, so they can learn to adapt to the next new thing they >> will inevitably face--in life generally? >> >> John >> > > >