Ron, If I understand correctly, one of my two guesses was right. However, I'm having a hard time envisioning how the procedure works. From your description, it sounds like group 1 gives their conclusion, then group 2, etc. If that's true, it is more like a sequential report than a simultaneous report. I'm also guessing that that much of the discussion is between the representative and the class and that you are typically very active in moderating the discussion. The ideal situation is getting teams to DIRECTLY challenge each other so that your only job is to "direct traffic". In fact, when it is going really well, they almost forget that you are even there. In my experience, the best way to make it happen is creating a situation in which teams are as committed as possible to different specific choices which, because they simultaneously report, they are "on the hook" to defend. I think my three recommendations are still valid suggestions. 1) Make some of the choices much more difficult and complex so that it will take them longer to make a specific choice. If possible, design it so that it integrates across units. 2) Change the form of some of the simultaneous reports (e.g., poster/gallery walk, overlaying transparencies that represent some sort of a curve or graph, _____ in 10 words or less on a 3x5 card that is placed on a document camera or is typed into a spreadsheet and projected onto a screen, etc.). 3) Recycle the question by changing some of the parameters in a way that causes students to have to use the same information but, think about it from a different perspective. Larry On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Carson, Ron <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Actually, I do NOT use the card method. I had each group designate a > spokesperson, which could not be the same person as previous week. At the > end of the application, each team's spokesperson came to the front. Then I > randomly chose each person to present their teams response to the exercise. > I found this format beneficial because there was much discussion after each > report. I'm sure there was some "learning" between each spokesperson's > response but generally presenters stayed pretty true to what their team > answered. > > But, even with this, I found the application exercises to not take an > extensive amount of time.... > ________________________________________ > From: Larry Michaelsen [[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 4:02 PM > To: Carson, Ron > Cc: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: If not Doing iRats, What? > > Ron, > > Based on the fact that the applications are so brief, I'm guessing that > all of them are exactly the same report back format and that the report is > holding up a card in response to what amounts to a multiple choice > question. If that's the case, I'd attempt to do three things: > 1) Make some of the choices much more difficult and complex so that it > will take them longer to make a specific choice. If possible, design it so > that it integrates across units. > 2) Change the form of some of the simultaneous reports (e.g., > poster/gallery walk, overlaying transparencies that represent some sort of > a curve or graph, _____ in 10 words or less on a 3x5 card that is placed on > a document camera or is typed into a spreadsheet and projected onto a > screen, etc.). > 3) Recycle the question by changing some of the parameters in a way that > causes students to have to use the same information but, think about it > from a different perspective. > > Larry > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Carson, Ron <[log in to unmask]<mailto: > [log in to unmask]>> wrote: > Thanks Larry. I appreciate your input, as I do all the input I received. > I have a follow up question on application exercises. > > In my experience last semester, each application exercise took no more > than 15 - 20 minutes. Thus for a 3 hour class, I must produce approximately > 6 application exercises per week. For some reason, this seems excessive, > both for me and students. > > Maybe I'm messing something in constructing the exercises. > > Thanks, > > Ron > ________________________________________ > From: Larry Michaelsen [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] > Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 6:39 PM > To: Carson, Ron > Cc: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask] > > > Subject: Re: If not Doing iRats, What? > > I think the question of "How many RATs?" is the wrong question. That's > because the answer might be different in different situations. The > principle is that students have to experience the class as being about > USING CONCEPTS AND IDEAS NOT SIMPLY LEARNING ABOUT THEM. If you put too > much emphasis on the RATs (which you can do in a variety of ways including > by giving too many or counting them too much and, most commonly, not having > compelling 4-S applications), then students think that this class is just > like all the others we've had in that the GRADE is what is important. When > that happens they will complain that the tests are too hard or it's not > fair to test us over stuff you haven't lectured about or anything else that > they think will convince you to make it easier to get a good grade--because > the focus is on grades and NOT on learning. When I've encountered more than > a modest push back (which you always get early on), I've learned that what > I need to do isn't give fewer, more or easier RATs--that's treating the > symptom not the problem. What I need to do is to improve my applications > and/or do a better job of helping students understand WHY the applications > I'm using are important to them. > > Also, when I encounter colleagues who are getting a lot of flack on their > RATs the most common reasons are: > 1) The frequency is so great that students experience the class as being > about content coverage not content application. > 2) The colleague either doesn't know about or has decided against using > one or more of the tools that help students get past the, "it's about > grades not about learning" mentality that virtually always happens in > traditional courses. These tools include: > • Letting students have a say in how much the RATs count > • Using the IF-AT answer sheets to provide real-time feedback > • Using the appeals process > • Focusing the RAT questions on KEY ideas (i.e., ideas that YOU are > absolutely convinced are critical because they are inextricably linked to > your applications--thus, Backwards Design is critical. Further, if they > pass this test, you won't have any trouble justifying the fact that that > students need to master them. > • After each application (which really need to be good ones), reminding > students that, without their advanced preparation, they wouldn't have had > the opportunity to practice using the content. > > I hope this helps. > > Larry > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Carson, Ron <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto: > [log in to unmask]>>> wrote: > I completed last semester’s Older Adult course with good results. The way > my class was set up, I had 7 weeks of TBL and 6 weeks of traditional > lecture, practicals, etc. For the coming semester, I have 13 weeks of TBL > class. So, given that only 6 or 7 iRats are recommended, what do you do on > the weeks when no iRATS are scheduled? Or, is it OK to do iRATS every week? > > Thanks, > > -- > Ron Carson MHS, OT > Assistant Professor > Adventist Univeristy of Health Sciences<http://www.adu.edu/> > 671 Winyah Drive > Orlando, FL 32803 > 407.303.9182<tel:407.303.9182><tel:407.303.9182<tel:407.303.9182>> > (office) > 407.303.7820<tel:407.303.7820><tel:407.303.7820<tel:407.303.7820>> (fax) > [cid:image001.gif@01CD7B9E.48537290] > > > > > -- > ******************************* > Larry K. Michaelsen, Professor of Management > Dockery 400G, University of Central Missouri > Warrensburg, MO 64093 > 660/543-4315<tel:660%2F543-4315> voice, 660/543-8465<tel:660%2F543-8465> > fax > For info on: > Team-Based Learning (TBL) <www.teambasedlearning.org< > http://www.teambasedlearning.org><http://www.teambasedlearning.org>> > Integrative Business Experience (IBE) <http://ucmo.edu/IBEl< > http://faculty.ucmo.edu/ibe/home.html>> > ******************************* > > > > > > -- > ******************************* > Larry K. Michaelsen, Professor of Management > Dockery 400G, University of Central Missouri > Warrensburg, MO 64093 > 660/543-4315 voice, 660/543-8465 fax > For info on: > Team-Based Learning (TBL) <www.teambasedlearning.org< > http://www.teambasedlearning.org>> > Integrative Business Experience (IBE) <http://ucmo.edu/IBEl< > http://faculty.ucmo.edu/ibe/home.html>> > ******************************* > > > -- ******************************* Larry K. Michaelsen, Professor of Management Dockery 400G, University of Central Missouri Warrensburg, MO 64093 660/543-4315 voice, 660/543-8465 fax For info on: Team-Based Learning (TBL) <www.teambasedlearning.org> Integrative Business Experience (IBE) <http://ucmo.edu/IBEl<http://faculty.ucmo.edu/ibe/home.html> > *******************************