Dear Maureen,
See below for my thoughts - I hope this helps.
********************************************************
WE HAVE CHANGED OUR EMAIL ADDRESS - PLEASE CHANGE TO
[log in to unmask]
Sandy COOK, PhD | Associate Dean, Curriculum Development | Medical
Education, Research, and Evaluation (MERE) | Duke-NUS Graduate Medical
School Singapore | Khoo Teck Puat Building | 8 College Road
Singapore |169857 | W: (65) 6516 8722| F: (65) 6227 2698 | email:
[log in to unmask] | web: http://www.duke-nus.edu.sg;
Administrative Executive: Belinda Yeo | [log in to unmask] |
6516-8511
Important: This email is confidential and may be privileged. If you
are not the intended recipient, please delete it and notify us
immediately; you should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose
its contents to any other person. Thank you.
-----Original Message-----
From: Team-Based Learning [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Maureen Lloy
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 3:37 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: IRAT versus TRAT weight distribution?
Our Pharmacy College is embracing TBL throughout our entire Curriculum.
We have found it to be useful, fantastic, challenging and fun! However,
we
could use your assistance with regard to IRATs versus TRATs.
THE QUESTION(s):
1. Should IRATs and TRATs be given equal weight with regards to the
grading
schematic? (For example, if your IRATs are worth 10%, should TRATs be
worth
10%, as well). Why or why not?
[SC] We were guided by Michaelsen's book and workshops that suggested we
let the students decide the distribution within certain parameters. You
don't mention the application - do you score that as well?
So, as an example, administratively we made the decision similar to your
first year that that our course grades would be made up of approximately
50% team work and 50% individual work. That would mean that IRATs + any
exams = approximately 50%, GRATS, Applications, and Peer would =
approximately 50%. And, that we would, within some parameters, permit
the students to have some say in the distribution of the IRATs, GRATS,
and Applications. So, lets say you have a 6 week course, with 2
summative exams, 12 TBL sessions (2 per week), and a peer evaluation.
The faculty made the decision that the 2 summative exams would be worth
19% each for a total of 38%. Administratively we decided that peer
evaluation was important so gave it 10%. Now 48% of the grade is
allocated - 38% individual and 10% team. That means that 52% is left
for the 12 TBL sessions, making them worth 4.33% each.
We then go to the students and say - you have 52% to allocate between
the IRAT, GRAT, and Application. To make up the remaining 50% of the
individual score, the IRAT cannot be less than 12% (added up over the 12
sessions - but could be more), the application cannot be less than 10%,
but within those parameters you can distribute the 52%. So, if the
students choose the minimum for IRAT (which they usually do) and split
the GRAT and Application - you would get a grade distribution like this
- combined across all 12 sessions.
Individual = 50%
2 exams @ 19% = 38%
12 IRAT @ 1% = 12%
Team = 50%
12 GRAT 20%
12 Applic 20%
1 Peer 10%
2. The alternative question you can ask yourself, "Is it okay to make
TRATs
worth only 5% when the IRATs are worth 10%). Why or why not?
[SC] The students might have to choose the GRAT to be less than IRAT or
Application in our situation if there are no other summative individual
exams. They generally would not want to, knowing that team work results
in significantly higher grades.
We also have courses that do not have summative exams and use only TBL
for grading- and then the IRATS are 50% of the grade. In that case, the
remaining 50% is distributed among the Peer (again usually 10%), GRAT
and Application - 20%, 20% or some combination. In that case, for a
course with 12 TBL session, each TBL session would be 7.5%; IRAT = 4.2%;
GRAT = 1.7%; Application = 1.7%. In that situation, the IRATS are worth
more. If the sessions are engaging, fair, and they feel they learn from
it, our experience has proven to be received ok.
We struggled with our faculty to keep the 50/50 split and not raise the
individual scores higher. We believe the students learn more through
the teamwork than they would individually, and since we value that - we
keep the percentage high. So far it has not proven to be a detriment to
keep at 50/50.
Our faculty have also felt that they know more about what the students
are thinking and learning from the TBL sessions then they would from
more traditional methods - since they get to see and hear how the
students are thinking about the answers and listen to them debate or
defend their answers.
THE BACKGROUND:
Last year, for all classes, we utilized a Grading Schematic of 50:50 and
60:40
for Individual and Team contributions to the grade, respectively. The
IRAT and
TRAT scores were weighted evenly. (If IRATs were worth 20 points, TRATs
were worth 20 points).
As we were reviewing and assessing the curriculum and the courses of our
pharmacy program, we realized that there was a need for MORE individual
accountability in such a professional program. In order to attain this,
we as a
faculty, decided to change our Grading Schematic to 70:30 with 70%
individual accountability towards the grade and 30% team contribution.
With
this lower availability of the Team contribution, some faculty are
considering
lowering the TRAT percentage to 5-10 percent, yet leaving IRAT
percentage
at 10-20 percent.
We would like to be consistent with the TBL concepts as much as possible
and
appreciate any and all input.
Maureen Lloy, Pharm.D.
Associate Professor of Clinical Sciences
California Northstate College of Pharmacy
10811 International Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Office: (916) 631-8108 ext. 219
[log in to unmask]