Dr. Marie Allsopp from Purdue University presented at the 2020 Lilly Conference online a recorded session that explained team-based learning (TBL) and peer evaluation in TBL. I’ve heard several presentations about TBL and yet still don’t have a good grasp of the logistics. The video Dr. Allsopp prayed from UT Austin described team selection and the TBL process. Teams are diverse, assigned, and permanent. Instructors in the video mentioned creating teams with different majors, for example. Students prepare for TBL modules before class and then take an individual assessment before retaking it as a team. In their groups, students discuss and explain their reasoning to decide on answers. This process is the readiness assurance test/process. Groups can appeal in writing if they believe a question was graded incorrectly. Next, application activities take place that require group work on case studies or challenges with significant problems that may not have right or wrong answers. Students think and exchange ideas to reach conclusions. Groups present their results. One of the instructors in the video mentioned it was a great way of training lawyers and practicing discussion. The peer feedback described in the UT video was a questionnaire with specific questions about what students appreciate and request from their peers. Instructors commented that it was very powerful to have students provide honest feedback to each other. TBL therefore consists of four stages: creation of strategically formed permanent groups, readiness assurance, application activities, and peer evaluations. TBL promotes real-world collaboration, inter reliance, active discussion, and critical thinking. Allsopp mentioned that there are resources available for implementing TBL pedagogy online. Allsopp then described implementation of TBL peer review in a nutrition class they taught with 69 students. Allsopp used a more complicated peer evaluation with documents for each individual to quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate group members. Punctuality, preparation, self-directed learning, and interpersonal skills were addressed. Questions in the qualitative section included: what was the single most valuable contribution of this teammate to the team and what behaviors should this teammate change. Multipliers were factored in such that the quantitative feedback was worth 0.60 and the qualitative feedback 0.40. Graders used detailed rubrics to evaluate the qualitative feedback based on the usefulness of the feedback. It sounds fantastic and can really inform team dynamics. However, this process of feedback is indeed time consuming, as mentioned by the presenter. Allsopp used undergraduate and graduate graders to provide feedback. Allsopp also analyzed qualitative feedback using word clouds modified for phrases. I thought the examples of peer feedback were honest and constructive. This is exactly what we want: actionable feedback such as the team will benefit if you contribute more. I love the idea of providing peer feedback that is so detailed and structured, yet fear implementation and logistics would be challenging, especially in one of our eight-week courses! I am interested in how TBL can be implemented online or how some elements, including peer feedback, can be moved online. I appreciate that Allsopp mentioned FERPA considerations are important when selecting peer feedback software and suggested checking institutional policies. TBL does align well with case studies and my interest in open-ended data-analysis heavy cases! Structuring our high-throughout case studies as components of TBL modules with readiness assurance testing, group feedback, and opportunities for exchange of ideas through group and class level discussions may be the next frontier of HITS!
