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) |
Administrative Executive:
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
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
Office: (916) 631-8108 ext. 219