I've noticed the same thing. I run downstairs to put the Scantrons through the machine during the team RATs or to my office for something I need during an Application Exercise and my teams are so involved/ invested in their 'work' that they don't seem to notice that I've left or returned. Karla -----Original Message----- From: Team-Based Learning [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bill Goffe Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 7:21 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Research concept: Assessing team learning with remedial learners at a Japanese university Ah -- very interesting. I wasn't aware of much of this background. At the end, you ask: > So, the question becomes, does TBL allow teachers to scaffold students > and teams toward self-direction in learning or must the faculty keep > constant vigilance regardless of the context? While I don't have data, I'd suggest a tentative "yes." Several weeks into the semester, when they've experienced TBL and have bought into it, I'll sometimes leave the classroom for a minute or two to get a sip of water or to get something I left in my office. On my return the room is still abuzz with activity and hardly a students even acknowledges my return as they're busy working with their team. I love how TBL sets up incentives for this to come about. I don't know if this extends beyond my class, but I'd like to think so. It would be really interesting and indeed useful to know. - Bill Brent said: > Thanks for your thoughts on the Hawthorne Effect, Bill. Like it came > straight from one of my workshops. > > I fully agree; and, as you point out, so does most of the research. My > point might not have been clear; I was not introducing the Hawthorne > effect to advocate for it, but to point out that constant faculty > oversight is like an application of the Hawthorne effect. > > To avoid further confusion, I think it is important to differentiate > between the Hawthorne study conclusions and the Hawthorne effect. > Management gurus and practitioners still hold tight to the “happy > employees are productive employees” conclusion of the Hawthorne > studies. However, this conclusion is essentially “cow psychology”; as > in, “a happy cow produces more milk.” Last time I checked, most humans > are a bit more complex than cows. Contrary to the conclusions of the > Hawthorne studies and the assertions of some organizational > psychologists, most research shows that performance precedes > satisfaction, not the other way around. in other words, employees who perform tend to be more satisfied on the job. > > Rather than finding a connection between satisfaction and performance > as many assert, the Hawthorne studies showed that paying attention to > employees can result in temporary increases of productivity. MBWA > serves as an example of how a manager can use the Hawthorne effect to > elicit temporary increases in performance; “the boss is coming, look > busy.” Faculty oversight in TBL also serves as an example of how > teachers use constant oversight in attempt maintain performance levels in the classroom. > > A problem with relying on attention events to motivate performance is > that employees performance becomes dependent on extrinsic motivational forces. > This is why the Hawthorne Effect is the enemy of trainers; performance > will usually increase through an attention event, but it is difficult > to determine the degree to which performance increases can be > attributed to the training or to the attention. If training is not > reinforced or if it does not provide subjects with substantial new > tools for sustained performance improvements, performance will likely > drop in direct correlation to the performance that was motivated by the attention event. Homeostasis at work; it all balances out. > However, this does not mean that there is anything wrong with the > extrinsic motivators; we just need to be aware of the psychological > forces at work, and make sure we are productively using the attention > events to foster development rather than dependence. > > Regarding faculty oversight as an application of the Hawthorne effect, > we have to apply a certain degree of micromanagement when we are > working with students who have no experience in applying teamwork to > learning, and with students who lack the maturity for self-direction. > > However, is there ever a point at which students can develop > sufficient capacity and intrinsic motivation to collaborate without faculty oversight? > > In professional and adult development environments, managers and > teachers attempt to facilitate individuals toward independence and > teams toward interdependence by helping them gain skills and > motivation for perpetual development beyond the classroom. Fully > delegating responsibility and authority without any oversight is > usually a mistake; but, we might find that continuous attention events > can ultimately hinder development of intrinsic skills and motivation. > > So, the question becomes, does TBL allow teachers to scaffold students > and teams toward self-direction in learning or must the faculty keep > constant vigilance regardless of the context? > > Regards, > > Brent -- Bill Goffe Department of Economics SUNY Oswego, 416 Mahar Hall Oswego, NY 13126 315-312-3444(v), 315-312-5444(f) [log in to unmask] http://cook.rfe.org