Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Open 2013:  Team-based Learning Pedagogy: Transforming classroom dialogue and learning
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.


Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Open 2013: Team-based Learning Pedagogy: Transforming classroom dialogue and learning


Published on

1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Team-Based LearningPedagogy:Transforming classroomDialogue and learning Colin K. Drummond Patrick Crago Gary Wnek March 22, 2013 Engineering Better Health
  • 2. TopicsSubjects of discussionContext: Program of study  One-year “Masters of Engineering and Management”  Engineers building managerial and leadership skillsSkills to develop  Critical thinking skills  Dealing with ambiguity Employer feedback these are priorities  Self-directed learningStudent activities to build skills  Team-based learning  In-class “chalk talk” and “elevator pitches”  Networking to build “social capital” Page 2
  • 3. Program of study1-Year MS degree in “Engineering & Management” Summer Fall Spring Professional Understanding People Information Technology & Development and Change in Systems Organizations Accounting, Finance & Engineering Statistics in Enterprise Resource Engineering Economics Quality – Six Sigma Planning in the Supply Chain Product Process Design, Product Process Design, Project Management Development and Development and Delivery I Delivery II Materials & Mfg. Engineering Engineering Processes Entrepreneurship I Entrepreneurship II Focus 1 Elective 1 Elective Credit Total 12 Credit Total 15 Credit Total 15 Page 3
  • 4. Real-world decisions Problems in the “new economy” can be challenging  Interdisciplinary problems prevail Especially if technology is involved  Team solutions are essential Traditional education techniques focus on individual (not team) performance“The road less traveled”  Tomorrow’s problems unpredictable Have to train students to solve types of problems that do not exist today Page 4
  • 5. Real-world decisions More than 1 solution can exist for business problems Undergraduate Successful Engineering EntrepreneurType Numbers WordsScope Bounded UnboundedLearning Directed Self-directedAccountability Individual Team  Students must be comfortable with ‘vague’ problems  Students must develop new competencies Page 5
  • 6. What made you get started on this?Student inability to deal with ambiguity and limited data They could recite facts based on traditional lectures, but … Critical thinking skills were weak, so I began to wonder …. Were my instruction methods appropriate for the outcomes I was seeking? The discovery of tools Were new tools needed? What was I really looking for? Page 6
  • 7. Critical Thinking SkillsFocus on three items, though all are important  Identifies, summarizes, and reformulates the situation.  Identifies critical assumptions or situational context.  Develops individual perspective, hypothesis or position.  Finds, assesses, & analyzes appropriate supporting data.  Integrates issues from other perspectives and positions.  Identifies and assesses conclusions & consequences.  Communicates effectively. Page 7
  • 8. Activities in the classroomCross-reference to skill development areas ng gu ith ills ki ng d sk thin ni cte bi g w ity le dire am alin l ica lf- De it ar Se Cr Team-based learning Chalk talk Elevator pitches Learning Plans Primary Secondary Page 8
  • 9. Team-Based LearningA disciplined, formalized process Page 9
  • 10. Key components of the processThe three “S” model Individual and group efforts centered on the same problem Course concepts used to make and defend specific choices Group work and thinking is public and shared simultaneously Page 10
  • 11. Would this fly?Some risk involved Prior focus on didactic learning: Conveying by lectures Instructor-focused Assumes professor is correct TBL focuses on dialectic learning Art of reasoning Statements rationale required Teaching of how, not what A shift to life-long learning skills “A flying dog?” Page 11
  • 12. TBL relative to other techniquesOften confused with the case study method Dialectic Problem Based Learning Team BasedLearning Case LearningMethod Study Traditional Method Engineering Courses Book Didactic Faculty Peers Discussion Expertise Page 12
  • 13. Changes the way you prepare for classPre-class work emphasized, class is about applications Page 13
  • 14. Changes the way you prepare for classMultiple choice questions took on a new life!1. Individual Readiness assessment: 5-10 MC questions2. Turn in paper, and immediately convene groups to complete the Immediate Feedback (IF) form3. Class meets together and discusses results; members of the team are asked to defend decisionThen, on to the Grand Challenge (case study) Page 14
  • 15. Grand ChallengeCase studies from real work experiencesTwo-page case  Students read in-class (will not have seen before)  Case is related to syllabus topics and theoryOne of three decisions is selected  One is the real outcome  Another is based on theory  Sometimes theory and outcome are the sameTeams reach a consensus on “best” choice  Write-up a one-page “memo to manager”  Present and defend to rest of class Page 15
  • 16. Grand ChallengeUncover failure-prone tactics Rush to judgment – Locking in on the first solutions Narrow look at motivations and remedies Misuse of resources – Failing to take a systems perspective Inadequate scenario analysis Failure-prone tactics – Inadequate participation in decision-making Failing to uncover all concerns Limiting search for remedies Pressure to “have an answer” Page 16
  • 17. Some resultsPost TBL self-assessment Summarize Aware Develop Evidence Average Issue Assumptions Hypothesis Based Improvement Fall 2012 0.311 0.380 0.143 0.319 0.288 7.1% 8.9% 3.1% 7.8% Fall 2011 0.440 0.604 0.440 0.405 0.472 10.3% 15.1% 10.6% 10.0% Fall 2010 0.337 0.668 0.217 0.470 0.423 8.3% 18.3% 5.4% 12.2% Fall 2009 0.120 0.140 0.053 0.453 0.192 2.8% 3.5% 1.3% 11.7% Fall 2008 0.139 0.129 0.138 0.125 0.133 3.3% 3.3% 3.3% 3.3%University of Washington CTS Instrument Page 17
  • 18. SummaryThe journey has just started, reallyEducational outcomes  Students more engaged in class  International students find peer support encouraging  Graduates reflect and provide feedbackEmployment  Recruiters like the focus  No statistical basis yetValue  IRB will cover Spring 2013  Review plan and see if collected data to test hypotheses Page 18
  • 19. Reshaping Entrepreneurship EducationCall to action Would like to have others consider this technique • Does this really work? • Is it fun and educational, or just fun? Have others build a base of expertise • How to better evaluate reasoning skills • What are the “strides and stumbles” with the large group? Create and share case studies Page 19