Two suggestios: 1. Give the class a vote option for the Grade weights-you provide the parameters, Let them hash it out; 2. Use a relatively low IRAT option So that you don't diminish the power of the Teamwork. We have used as low as 25 percent with diminution of individual effort- no one wants to come and not contribute fully. 70 percent count for the indiv work is too high. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 24, 2009, at 3:03 PM, Gary D Lynne <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Lane: > > One thing to keep in mind: If students are actively participating in > the Team, it is possible for all of the individuals to be below 70% > while the Team >70%... I have experienced it several times (albeit I > have only used TBL twice, last two years running.. in an > undergraduate class of about 45-50students, 7-9 teams each year). > This is to say, on more than one occasion, all the individuals on a > Team earned less than 70% on a RAT (answers collected on a Response > system "clicker") while the team earned upwards of 80-90% on the > team RAT (team discussion followed by scratching an IFAT form)! > > Magic? I don't think so: I believe there is a kind of synergy... a > kind of "ecological rationality" ... at work here. Not to make your > decision more difficult, but to argue someone earning less that 70% > individually did not in some sense contribute to the 80-90% grade is > probably not the case... > > To me this is more about how much to weight the individual and team > efforts... we use a 60% individual, 40% team weighting. The problem > you have pointed to has not yet appeared, although I can see where > it could happen! > > No easy answers here... > > > Gary D. Lynne, Professor > Department of Agricultural Economics and > School of Natural Resources > 103B Filley > University of Nebraska-Lincoln > Lincoln, NE 68583-0922 > USA > Website: http://www.agecon.unl.edu/facultystaff/directory/lynne.html > Phone: 1-402-472-8281 Cell: 1-402-430-3100 > This message and any attachments are confidential, may contain > privileged information, and are intended solely for the recipient(s) > named above. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person > responsible for delivery to the named recipient, any review, > distribution, dissemination or copying by you is prohibited. If you > have received this message in error, you should notify the sender by > return e-mail and delete the message from your computer system and > destroy any copies in any form. > > "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) > > <graycol.gif>"Brunner, Lane J" ---07/24/2009 09:30:34 AM---Hi folks- > > "Brunner, Lane J" <[log in to unmask]> > Sent by: Team Learning Discussion List <[log in to unmask]> > 07/24/2009 09:30 AM > > Please respond to > "Brunner, Lane J" <[log in to unmask]> > <ecblank.gif> > To > <ecblank.gif> > [log in to unmask] > <ecblank.gif> > cc > <ecblank.gif> > <ecblank.gif> > Subject > <ecblank.gif> > Student progression with TBL > <ecblank.gif> <ecblank.gif> > > Hi folks- > > We are refining our progression policy for our new school and would > appreciate some wisdom from the group. We are following the > traditional TBL model with respect to grading where about 35% of a > student’s grade is based on the team’s work (tRATs, application > exercises) and 65% is based on the student’s individual work (iRATs, > exams, peer evaluation). Assume that the expectations of the facult > y and logistics of the course are “perfect” and that the only > variable is student and team performance. > > Assume for the sake of this discussion on progression that a student > must receive a course grade of 70% to pass a class and progress in > the program (i.e. 70% is the minimum acceptable level of mastery/ > competency). While it may be unlikely, mathematically, a student can > receive a “passing” grade (>70%) in the course yet as an > individual, earn less than 70%. Thus, the student as an individual w > ould not have achieved the minimum level of competency but > “passed” because of the team’s effort. > > This situation could occur if you have accidentally formed a team of > weakly performing individuals who, as a team, barely achieve the > minimum competency of 70%. For example, the team averages 75%, but > one of the individuals scores below 70% on each individual > assessment (iRATs, exams, and peer evaluations). This hypothetical > student’s course grade may be just above 70%, but their individual p > erformance demonstrates a lack of competency. > > Okay…I hope all that made sense! Now for a few questions. > 1. Have any of you experienced such a scenario in one of your TBL > courses? > 2. Do you have progression policies in place to address such a > possibility? > 3. If you have a progression policy that may work, would you be > willing to share it? > 4. If you don’t have a progression policy that would apply, what wis > dom could you offer us? > > Thanks everyone! > > Lane > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Lane J. Brunner, R.Ph., Ph.D. > Dean, School of Pharmacy > Rueckert-Hartman College for Health Professions > Regis University > 3333 Regis Boulevard, H-28 > Denver, CO 80221-1099 > Phone: (303) 625-1300 > Fax: (303) 625-1305 > Regis University School of Pharmacy > > > >