Hello Jim, We will be posting " Off to On: Best Practices for Online Team-Based Learning™" on the public side of the TBLC website, probably next week. This is a paper that was done by the TBL Online Community of Practice and we worked on it for about a year. The members who participated in this activity reviewed the literature and used the experiences of the applying TBL in an online environment. We have just gotten Creative Commons license-BY. I am also posting the link for an online module Bruce Leonard and I developed on how to create an online course using TBL as a teaching strategy. If you have problems with the first link use the second one which is a link to my page on the university of Nevada Las Vegas web site and go to the end of the page and access the line Team based learning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URSERvgLDGY&authuser=0 https://www.unlv.edu/people/michele-clark-phd-rn-lmft hope this is of some help Michele Michele C Clark, RN, PhD Associate Professor Emerita Chair of the Team-Based Learning Membership Committee UNLV School of Nursing 702-895-3360 [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>du On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 11:01 AM, Sibley, James Edward <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi > > > > I am working with a teacher from Georgia…trying to imagine TBL online > > > > Here is what we have come up with… > > > > If you have experience or words of wisdom, I would love to hear it > > > > Jim > > > > ######################### > > > > > > *Team-Based Learning Online – A proposal* > > > > Team-Based Learning is a flipped classroom model that has been > traditionally applied to F2F courses. There has been growing interest in > applying some of the unique TBL pedagogical to the online environment. This > document will attempt to map the F2F components to the online environment. > > > > TBL moves initial acquisition of basic knowledge outside of the classroom > (typically with targeted readings), then checks and builds on that initial > knowledge using a process known as the Readiness Assurance Process. > Finally, having established a shared level of basic understanding, teams > move to an application phase where they are asked to make decisions in > applying what they abstractly learned to concrete situations. This > application of the abstract to concrete situations naturally highlights > important contextual factor, and analysis issues. > > > > *Reviewing 2 Major Processes in Face-2-Face TBL* > > > > *Readiness Assurance Process (RAP)* > > > > One of the most interesting things about the Readiness Assurance Process > is that students interact with the course concepts up to 5 times and > interact with troublesome concepts more than easy concepts. The first > interaction is in the readings, then the individual test, the team test, > the Appeals process (which forces students back into readings right where > they had trouble) and finally the instructor clarification/mini-lecture on > the troublesome topics. What the RAP process establishes is a shared level > of understanding so all team members can more equally contribute. > > > > *Readings:* Time on task, knowledge acquisition. > > > > *Individual Test:* Individual accountability for knowledge acquisition. > > *Team Test*: Social construction of knowledge, accountability to peers, > consensus building, negotiation, team decision-making and immediate > feedback. > > > > *Appeals Construction Process*: Pushes students back into reading right > where they had the most difficulty. > > > > *Instructor Clarification/ Mini-Lecture*: a short, focused discussion on > remaining troublesome topics. > > > > *Application Activities (4S)* > > > > Activities built using TBL’s unique 4S structure. Students use course > concepts to solve problems, social construction of knowledge, taking a > public position, articulating one’s thinking and ideas, probing and > analyzing other team’s thinking and decision. The 4 required components for > this application activity are: significant problem, same problem, specific > choice and simultaneous report. > > > > *Mapping TBL Processes to the online environment* > > > > *RAP Process (Day 1 to 4)* > > > > *Day 0-1* > > > > *Reading/Preparation Materials* – online delivery is a good fit – print > or video > > > > *Individual Readiness Assurance* – existing quiz tools will work well. If > video content is used can embed questions in flow of video. Just want to > ensure students have given honest effort in reading and trying to > understand material. It’s important (according to Palsole and Awalt) to not > provide students instant grade, the individual grade is provided after the > team grade is provided. > > > > *Day 2-3* > > *Team Readiness Assurance* – uses model described to Palsole and Awalt > (NDTL no. 116). Two or Three higher-level RAP (bordering on easy 4S) > questions are asked. Here is a deviation from traditional TBL, these > questions are not the same as iRAT questions. You want questions that are a > little more difficult and higher level to spark discussion. Team discuss in > private discussion area and at end of two days the designated team leader > (rotating role – see table 1) compiles discussion and posts gist on whole > common course discussion board. Points are given to team leader for > compilation and given to each individual for making “substantive” posts > (set a minimum – see table 2). At end of this process individual > understanding has improved through team processing. > > *Day 4* > > > > *Mini-lecture* – teacher provides summary observations from posting and > reviews major takeaways. Liberally quote student words in summary to honour > their contributions. > > > > *4S Process* *(Day 5 to 10)* > > 4S Problem or case is posted on common course discussion board. Provide > the specific choices that each team must select from. > > > > *Day 5-8* > > > > For 3 days, Student teams analyze, discuss problem, and come to a > consensus decision in private team discussion forum. Points are awarded to > individuals for “substantive” discussion posts (set a minimum see table 2). > Forums we have used are private but include instructor. Peer evaluation > could work here – I would add peer evaluation questions like – contributed > at least 2 substantive post at each stage, contributed at least 1 > substantive post at each stage, contributed NO substantive post. > > > > At end of period - the designated team leader (rotating role – see table 3 > for grading criteria) compiles discussion and sends decision and support > rationales to instructor (word limits/worksheet) by 5 pm on designated day. > I like how you have us send to discussion board and instructor, so we can > view everyone’s ideas. > > > > *End of Day 8* > > > > Instructor then compiles and posts in common course discussion board > (simultaneous report). Or You could have teams post themselves at a > specific time to save instructor effort. A little less simultaneous, but > workable. > > > > *Day 8-10* > > > > Once posted, individual review all team submissions and must post two > “substantive” comments – one challenge comment and one supportive comment > (see table 2). I like the simple 2 part components, challenge and > supportive. > > > > *Module Summary (Day 11)* > > > > Instructor then compiles discussion – extracts lesson learned and shares a > summary of problem solution. Liberally quote student words in summary to > honour their contribution. > > > > *Table 1: tRAT team leader* (marks for assigned rotating role individual) > > > > *0* > > *1* > > *2* > > *4* > > *Does not post* > > *Poor quality * > > *Average Quality * > > *Excellent* > > poorly organized and difficult to understand > > adequately organized and mostly understandable > > well organized, understandable and insightful > > > > *Table 2: Individual Posting**** (marks for individuals) > > > > *0* > > *1* > > *Not Substantive* > (or does not post) > > *Substantive* > > More than 50 words. Adds substantially to conversation. > See list. > > > > *used three times, first in tRAT, then in 4S team analysis discussion, > and finally in the 4S simultaneous report follow-up discussion (if we set > minimum to 2 posts per step – 6 total points are available to individuals). > > > > *A Few Important Substantive Discussion Contribution Behaviours* > > > > - • *Support/Verify* – cite new evidence (literature > reference) or quote readings (page numbers) > - • *Build *– add the statement of previous speaker > - • *Link/Combine* – incorporate multiple sources and > ideas into one big idea > - • *Uncover Assumptions* – what is believed to be true > without proof > - • *Articulate limits of applicability* – how context > affects applicability > - • *Paraphrase/Summarize* – concise restatement of > aggregate ideas > - • *Unpack *– explain in detail how team arrived at > decision > - • *Devil’s Advocate* – examine alternate choices or > understandings > > > > > > *Table 3: 4S team compilation and submission* (marks for assigned > rotating role individual) > > > > *0* > > *1* > > *2* > > *4* > > *Does not send* > > *Poor quality* > > *Average Quality* > > *Excellent* > > poorly organized and difficult to understand > > adequately organized and includes decision and some supporting rationales > > well organized, clear decision, well-articulated rationales, acknowledges > limits of applicability and effects of context > > > > > > > > > > > > [image: id:[log in to unmask]] > > > > *Jim Sibley * > > > > *Director * > > [image: id:[log in to unmask]] > > http://cis.apsc.ubc.ca/ > > Faculty of Applied Science > > University of British Columbia > > > > CEME 1214-6250 Applied Science Lane > > Vancouver, BC Canada > > V6T 1Z4 > > Phone 604.822.9241 > > Email: [log in to unmask] > > > > > > Check out my book Getting Started with Team–Based Learning > <http://www.learntbl.ca/> > > Check out my TBL website at www.learntbl.ca > > > > > > © Copyright 2018, Jim Sibley, All rights reserved The information > contained in this e-mail message and any attachments (collectively > "message") is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the > recipient (or recipients) named above. If the reader of this message is not > the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this > message in error and that any review, use, distribution, or copying of this > message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please > notify the sender immediately by e-mail, and delete the message. > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the TEAMLEARNING-L list, please click here. > <https://lists.ubc.ca/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=TEAMLEARNING-L&A=1> > > 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 the following link: https://lists.ubc.ca/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=TEAMLEARNING-L&A=1 Further information about the UBC Mailing Lists service can be found on the UBC IT website.