I agree with Dee and would add one more idea. Making sure your students understand the big purpose of your assignment is one of the keys--it ensures that the activities will be SIGNIFICANT. However, you still need to keep the other three S's (Same problem, Specific choice, Simultaneous report) in mind in designing and implementing your applications. If you do that, you won't have ANY problems with attendance--your students will come because they will want to be there because your classes will be both a socially and an intellectually enriching experience. Larry On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Dee Fink <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Lark, > > I will let others chime in, as they have already started doing, on the > implications of your Gold Star idea for group dynamics. > But I would like to address what you mention as your "Worst Fear": > That everyone will get up and leave [I think you mean, after the tRAT]. I > would not rely on the Gold Star system to resolve that challenge. > My sense is that you need a good "Big Purpose" for your course. This > is a course design issue. You need something that you present - or better > yet, that the class develops with your guidance, during the first week of > class, that convinces all of them that there is something really valuable > that they can learn in this course if they work and learn thoroughly during > all five modules. > This Big Purpose should be a single sentence or statement that > serves as a "North Star" for all the course activities. In a course on > nutrition for allied health majors, that Big Purpose might be something > along the lines of: > "Students who complete this course will be able to identify the > implications of nutrition for professionals in all the health professions." > Then of course, you want to offer an example or two during that first week > of what "identifying the implications of nutrition" might mean. > But if you do this, then your students will already know why they > should NOT get up and leave - and your worst fears will be unrealized! :-) > > Dee Fink > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Lark Claassen <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> I am putting together my first TBL course, which will be a hybrid course. >> It will serve 50-80 students. The course is a sophomore-level nutrition >> course designed for allied health majors, with the biggest population at >> our campus being pre-nursing majors. >> >> I have the content broken down into five 1-3 week modules to be delivered >> over 15 weeks with 13 actual F2F class meetings. >> >> I plan to give an online iRAT followed by an in-class tRAT. Then for the >> remainder of the 75 minute in-class session do application exercises. >> Students will be held accountable for pre-class preparation by their >> iRAT's and by team peer reviews (using the CATME program) done at >> mid-semester and at the end. So students have the opportunity to get >> feedback they can use to improve, I was thinking of weighting their two >> peer evaluations as 25% for their first peer review factor and 75% for >> their final peer review. These scores will be used to come up with a >> multiplication factor I apply to their tRAT scores to come up with a number >> that represents 15% of their final grade. >> >> Students will have 3 exams and a final plus some individual projects. >> >> In this scheme I've got a lot going on, but no room for team >> accountability for the application exercises. I'm hesitant to award points >> for their performance on the activities because I don't want to penalize >> them for what should be a formative process. And I don't want to grade on >> participation because that is what their peer evaluations are for. So how >> do I get them to care about the quality of their work after the tRAT is >> over? My worst fears? They will all get up and leave after it's over! >> >> One thought I had was to use the weekly grid I had planned to put in >> their team folders to record their team members attendance and their tRAT >> scores. What I would do is give them a sheet of gold stars- about 1.5 >> times more stars than we have class meetings- and have them at the end of >> each session consider who should get the gold star for the day for their >> pre-class preparation and in-class contributions. I will tell students two >> things: 1) the gold stars will serve as a record of how their team members >> are doing which will be helpful when they sit down to do their peer >> evaluations, 2) the gold stars will be considered when awarding letter >> grades if a student is "on the border". >> >> Can anyone see any problems this might create in the social dynamics of >> the team? Do I need to worry about them caring about the quality of their >> work once the tRAT's end or can I count on the four S's to make this a >> non-issue? >> >> -- >> Lark A. Claassen, Ph.D. >> Lecturer >> Department of Biological Sciences >> University of Maryland Baltimore County >> 1000 Hilltop Circle >> Baltimore, MD 21250 >> > > > > -- > *********************** > L. Dee Fink > 234 Foreman Ave. > Norman, OK 73069 > Phone/FAX: 405-364-6464 > Email: [log in to unmask] > Websites: > www.designlearning.org [multiple resources on course design] > www.deefinkandassociates.com [offer workshops & online courses] > www.finkconsulting.info [Fink's consulting activities & > publications] > > **Former President of the POD Network in Higher Education (2004-2005) > **Author of: *Creating Significant Learning Experiences* (2003, > Jossey-Bass) > **National Project Director: Teaching & Curriculum Improvement (TCI) > Project > **Senior Associate, Dee Fink & Associates Consulting Services > > > -- ******************************* 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> > *******************************