There is a good article by brickell et al that looks at student-selected, random and instructor-selected team performance Instructor-selected outperforms random out performs student-selected....the interesting part is by how much.....instructor/criterion selected teams just slightly outperforms random....both of which outperform student-selected by a lot I think the real message is anything but student-selected jim > From: Michael Sweet <[log in to unmask]> > Reply-To: Michael Sweet <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 10:15:29 -0500 > To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: team transparency > >> Whether messy, random or structured, does team formation really matter that >> much? Hmm? >> > > I don't know of this was a serious question or tongue-in-cheek. So, just to > be safe, I see strategic team formation as > fundamental/critical/crucial/serious/important/essential/key. > > 1) You want all teams to have the resources they need to succeed. > > 2) You want to avoid the stereotyping (positive or negative, self- or other) > that can occur when teams are allowed to form homogenously, which they will > because we are attracted to people who are like us. > > 3) You want to avoid the coalitions that occur when teams are allowed to > self-select (e.g., two friends choosing to be on the same team of five, > thereby creating a "voting bloc" within that team and an insider/outsider > dynamic that never allows the team to gel as a unit). > > 4) You want students to learn the life lesson of coming to see people very > different from them as allies, team-mates, and resources. > > 5) You want to avoid the "leftovers" effect that occurs when self-selecting > teams create a "last" team composed of people "no one else wanted." > > Now, it is true that once they graduate, these students will most likely not > find themselves in work teams that are so carefully balanced by the powers > that be. By the same token, they're not going to be taking a lot of > multiple-choice tests, either. The classroom is for learning, which requires > scaffolding, tools and experiences that are necessarily unlike what folks > encounter in real life. > > -M > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Team-Based Learning [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of > John Fritz > Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 9:56 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: team transparency > > On Aug 30, 2010, at 10:38 AM, Levine, Ruth wrote: > >> The trouble with using methods like previous grades is that if the >> students find out you did that they will always wonder (or worse-- >> find out!!) who the "smart one" and who the "dumb one" in the team >> is and that can be counterproductive to team cohesion in the long run. > > I tend to agree with Ruth. After all, isn't one of the virtues of TBL > supposed to be that it prepares students for the teams they will > inevitably find themselves to be a part of? We don't always get to > choose our colleagues (or neighbors). So part of life is figuring out > how to work well in the teams we find ourselves in, whether we chose > them or not. Transparency is fine, but in the end, if team formation > vs. function has more to do with their success, then the big life > lesson of TBL may not have been learned or facilitated. > > Whether messy, random or structured, does team formation really matter > that much? Hmm? > > Just my .02. > > John > > John Fritz > Asst. VP, Instructional Technology & New Media > UMBC Div. of Information Technology > 410.455.6596 | [log in to unmask] | www.umbc.edu/oit/itnm