Hi All

 

Here at University of Sydney, in managerial accounting, I do the application for marks (14%). The application occurs in 3 stages (1) teams analyse the case with a guiding worksheet (2) teams evaluate 6 options followed by simultaneous voting. All options are reasonable and equally acceptable. This semester we have for the first time provided a guiding worksheet for this too (3) teams justify their option and defend it against challenges from other teams. I go to great trouble in formulating options so that none are more attractive on face value or easier to justify. One other point is that I just state the bald option -  I do not give any reasons for it. That is for the team to decide. Perhaps owing to our cohort characteristics or the pressures from other subjects without marks there is little effort by many and no effort at all by some. My observation is that when teams know a portion of their grade depends on intelligently arguing for the option, it makes for (a) engagement within and between teams and (b) improvement over the semester. I have been doing this since 2009. One other change this semester: I made weeks 1 and 2 with lectures to give students a thorough grounding in concepts and the “big picture” of the course

 

Warm regards/gary

 

 

Hey.

 

As Jim mentions below, we do grade applications in most of our TBL classes (we do have one class which is undergoing an experimental design – not grading applications – and surveying students about the impact of this change), but I also have to add that attaching a grade to a subjective “messy” (as Wayne says) application question has never made me fear the wrath of the students.  To the contrary, I have found that student teams defend their answers more vehemently when they know that a portion of their team grade will be determined by their argument (as well as their choice).

 

I guess I like to use the currency of the realm – and for a student, the currency is points – in a way that rewards the behavior I really want to reinforce (i.e., deep thought in problem solving).  As a result, I create a mini-grading rubric for each application that dictates what range of partial credit a team will get if they pick the second-best answer.

 

My answer key for a 4-choice question might read like: Choice A is worth 9-10 pts, choice B is worth 7-9 points, choices C and D are worth 0-5 pts – and the number of points the team earns is determined by how intelligently they argue for their choice.

 

I think that by giving a grade for applications in a consistent way that goes beyond just the answer choice – we can get closer to actually assessing problem-solving instead of just assessing “correct choice-making”.

 

Pete

 

 

Peter Clapp, PhD

Associate Professor | School of Pharmacy | Rueckert-Hartman College for Health Professions

3333 Regis Blvd., Denver, CO 80221 H-28

P 303.625.1312  |  E [log in to unmask] |  REGIS.EDU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To unsubscribe from the TEAMLEARNING-L list, please click here.

Further information about the UBC Mailing Lists service can be found on the UBC IT website.

 

To unsubscribe from the TEAMLEARNING-L list, please click here.

Further information about the UBC Mailing Lists service can be found on the UBC IT website.