Hi Gary
 
We use TBL in many lower division courses
 
It can be difficult when there are external content covering expectations for your course
 
We use TBL in a 2nd year mechanical design course and last year when we resorted to lecturing at a difficult topic (we thought) the students stopped us and asked what we thought we were doing! They wanted TBL
 
There is a good paper by Haidet et al (available at TBL site) around active vs passive learning and they found that they could cover as much detailed technical mathematical content as a passive delivery.
 
There is also a great paper by Weeks (1987) talking about the fact that most engineering undergraduates (or at least the ones studied) see the instructor do 1000 problems at the board....and do another 3000 in their homework....BUT have no discernable improvement in their problem solving skills over their program......hmmm
 
Read Bligh about the ineffectiveness of lectures
 
I think the reality is that we as academics are in love with content and have a lot of trouble giving it up
 
The literature really points to our failure to effectively "cover the content" (Ramsden has some damming quotes about this)
 
THE REAL QUESTION is what do you want your students to be able to do.......reproduce lots of detail on demand.....or be able to think and solve problems
 
This is very controversial....I am in the middle of a curriculum review for one of my engineering departments and the "reducing" content issue is always at the surface
 
I have instructors who just can't give up the content....they are now using pre-class podcasts to "cover the content" so they can use class time differently.
 
I am a bit biased.....I think TBL is the answer to many of the curriculum issues we struggle with....I seen too many good outcomes in TBL courses of all levels....
 
Jim

From: Team-Based Learning [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gary D Lynne
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 6:05 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: TBL for all levels?

The "Webinar" yesterday stirred a thought/question, which I did not get around to posting: Does TBL have to be modified a bit for different levels of teaching, e.g. 200 level for mainly sophomores ( a course I have been working at converting into a TBL format) v. a graduate course? My concern is with how much material needs to be delivered in the traditional "sage on stage" (lecturing) format. I can see where an upper division (especially a capstone) course and/or graduate course could rely almost exclusively on self-teaching, with lecture supplements, and problem sets/case studies that really bring application to the table.

I am more sceptical about the latter for 100-200 level courses, at least based on my limited experience ... trying to bring TBL into my 200 level course only for the second time this semester. I find myself needing to do a bit more traditional lecturing than TBL seems to call for.... especially with respect to core ideas these students have never seen before (in contrast to upper division, graduate students who have seen the core ideas/theories/constructs many times before).

Any insights on this matter will be appreciated!

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://www.agecon.unl.edu/facultystaff/directory/lynne.html
Phone: 1-402-472-8281 Cell: 1-402-430-3100

"We are always only one failed generational transfer of knowledge away from darkest ignorance" (Herman Daly)
"We do not just have our own interests. We share interests with others. Empathy is neither altruistic nor self-interested. It rather exemplifies the implicit solidarity of human nature" (Robert Solomon)