240 likes | 536 Views
Groupwork and formative assessment Mark Freeman Outline Aims & rationale Literature review Process Easy & (almost) effortless wins Worthwhile wins In/Out-of-class decision based assessments Self & peer feedback Holistic in-class ‘team-based learning’ Conclusions Q & A
E N D
Groupwork and formative assessment Mark Freeman
Outline • Aims & rationale • Literature review • Process • Easy & (almost) effortless wins • Worthwhile wins • In/Out-of-class decision based assessments • Self & peer feedback • Holistic in-class ‘team-based learning’ • Conclusions • Q & A
Aims & rationale Aims • To identify how groupwork can foster learning and valuable graduate qualities …..…efficiently Rationale • Valuable GQ eg. ACCI (02); AIG(06); UniSA (07) • But not hitting mark • Sweet & Michaelsen (2006) Lisk (2003) • Volet (1998) • BCA (2006) • UniSA (2006) • Education is not providing increasingly vital skills to make innovation thrive. • “Management education was focussed on finance and marketing but was not providing graduates with the ‘soft’ skills such as teamwork, that enabled innovative use of these capabilities”
Literature review Models • Deep approaches desirable (Trigwell & Prosser, 1999) • Social constructivism (Rust et al, 2003; Bandura, 1997) • Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, Mourning (Tuckman, 1965, 2001). Whelan (2004) has similar where trust is crucial New groups differ to LT developed groups (Birmingham 04) • Less trust in & attraction to group • Little identification with group or its goals • Perceptions of others stereotyped • Decisions socially (not task) focussed • Less willing to disagree • Face-saving conflict resolution (eg. voting not reasoned consensus) • Less able to complete difficult intellectual tasks
Getting the most out of groupwork • What? • Product • analyse case • report as consultant • produce wiki • present orally/online • debate online • reflect journal/online • develop solution • Decision • decide optimal business (simulation) inputs • decide best outcome of application exercise • choose best MCQ quiz option • rate peers’ presentation • Why? • Where? • What? • How? • Preparing • Forming • Managing • Formative • Summative
Not ‘hands off’ management Preparing • Focus on peer learning not avoiding free riding • Value diversity (Baron, 2006) • Explain how to give/receive feedback & why • Engage team building exercises Forming • Teacher random/ability • Students with/out criteria Managing • Support thru stages (forming, storming, norming etc) • Who? Teacher, peers, self or all
Easy wins that promote feedback Quick wins • Submission of individual (not marked) concept map before teams formed • Permanent teams across semester & >1 assessments • In-class same team quiz after individual quiz (both assessable) & auto marked later by scanner (Almost) effortless wins • In-class same team quiz after individual quiz (both assessed) facilitated by IFAT forms or clickers • In-class team application exercise with simultaneous decision and reporting with reasons marked • Peer assessment of group products by peer groups facilitated by paper rubric or clickers
Worthwhile win 1: In/Out-of-class • Multi-cycle technology-supported business simulation that require regular decision inputs that are interdependent eg • SmartSims http://www.smartsims.com/ • CapSim http://www.capsim.com/ • Integrated business experience (Oklahoma Uni) • Capstone unit: run real business over one semester • Teams plan, fund, implement business idea • Local angel funding
Worthwhile win 2: Self/peer feedback • Self then peer evaluation • Judgment • Holistic • Criteria (NB. Student developed) • Enabling technology • in-class on paper • online • Applied • peer review as total assessment (eg. CPR) • additional assessment component to academic (eg. iPeer) • moderating academic’s team assessment mark (eg. SPARK) • simply formative • Followed by in-class feedback sessions
How does SPARK work? Rating scale: 0 = no contribution 1 = less than team average 2 = contribution per team average 3 = above team average
Aggregate factors produced by SPARK system SAPA factor 1.1 indicates overrate own contribution to team by 110% SPA factor Team A: 12/20 12 x 1.0 = 12 Team C: 15/20 Team B: 12/20 15 x 0.9 = 13.5 15 x 1.25 = 18.8 12 x 0.9 = 10.8 12 x 1.25 = 15.0 15 x 0.75 = 11.3 15 x 1.16 = 17.4 12 x 1.16 = 13.9 12 x 0.75 = 9.0 How will SPARK affect marks?
In-class reflective feedback sessions • Reflect on team performance and dynamics • Reflect on aggregate self & peer ratings • Reveal own shortcomings • Express positive contributions of others • Focus on improving collaboration not avoiding free-riding and provide gentle suggestions to peers • Consider response to scenarios
Pre-class Pre-class In-class In-class 5 per course 1 or 2 per course Worthwhile win 3: Team-based learning Prepare Indiv quiz Team quiz Contingent teaching Team problem Discuss self/peer feedback Class discuss Rate self/peers
Team-based Traditional Out of Class In Class Readings Convey Course Concepts ReadinessAssessment Lecture Apply Course Concepts In Class Out of Class
Holistic “Team-Based Learning” • Michaelsen et al (2002) & www.teambasedlearning.org • Students (eg. Levine et al, 04) • Actively engaged applying not passively listening • Challenges previous groupwork prejudices • Develops collaboration and communication skills • Obvious fun and hum • Achievement and learning (& in national exams) • Staff (eg. Thompson et al; 07) • Transformation of class time • Job satisfaction • Initial cost and risk of adopting – but can adopt incrementally
Conclusion 1: Team formation Process • Distribute diverse skills & abilities • Transparently form eg. in-class • Separate subgroups • Keep largish (5 to 7 members) Scope • Permanent over semester • Permanent across multiple assessments • Have some, preferably lots, of in-class time • Primarily for making decisions
Conclusion 2: Teams work on DECISIONS Decisions eg. in TBL • Negotiating assessment weights of indiv/team quiz • MCQ individual quiz • MCQ team quiz • Team application problem • Rating self and peer contributions Benefits • Promote learning of essential concepts or skills • Encourages application • Builds team cohesiveness • Ensures individual accountability • Develops critical evaluation • Highlights the positive value of groups
Conclusion 3: Support feedback loop Why? Marks + learning (ie. formative + summative) When? Regularly and immediately if possible How? Technology can be efficient & accurate • Scanners/clickers (for in class individual quizzes) • IFAT forms (for in-class team quiz) • Coloured cards (for in-class team problems) • Self and peer evaluation system (online or paper rubric) Peer feedback is very powerful • During completion of immediate feedback team quiz • Arguing through the team application problems • Multiple structured in-class formative feedback opportunities using peer ratings
References Papers and books • Epstein, M.L., Epstein, B.B., & Brosvic, G.M. (2001). Immediate feedback during academic testing. Psychological Reports. 88, 889-894. • Freeman M, McKenzie J. (2002) ‘SPARK: A Confidential Web-Based Template for Self and Peer Assessment of Student Teamwork: Benefits of Evaluating Across Different Subjects', British Journal of Educational Technology, vol.33:5, pp. 551 - 569. • Michaelsen, L.K., Knight, A.B & Fink, L.D. (2004) Team-Based Learning: A Transformative Use of Small Groups in College Teaching. Stylus Publishing, Sterling VA • Pelaez, N., (2002) “Problem-Based Writing with Peer Review Improves Academic Performance in Physiology,” Advances in Physiology Education, 26, pp174-184. • Race, P., (2000) 500 Tips on Group Learning. Routledge, London. Good websites • http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/ourwork/tla/employability_enterprise/web0304_student_employability_profile_business_management_accountancy.pdf • http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/gradquals/ • http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/gradquals/staff/program/assessment-table.pdf • http://ipeer.apsc.ubc.ca/wiki/index.php/IPeer • http://teaching.econ.usyd.edu.au/groupwork/
Thank you …. Q&A
Team application problems • Same Problem • so whole class applying minds first in teams • later whole class discussing finer points • Specific Choice • time on team decision not spent developing a product • impossible to complete without using course concepts • Simultaneous Report • decision makesresults of student thinking highly visible • opportunity to discuss contrasts in reasoning • Significant Learning • authentic, interesting, real world application • impossible to complete as individual
Why teamwork? Australian Chamber of Commerce & Industry (2002) • Communication: productive & harmonious relations • Team work: productive relationships & outcomes • Problem-solving: productive outcomes Australian Industry Group’ (2006) • Want “people who are flexible and adaptive, willing to learn on the job, team workers, technically competent and committed to excellence”. Business Council of Australia (2006) • Education not providing increasingly vital skills to make innovation thrive • “Management education was focussed on finance and marketing but was not providing graduates with the ‘soft’ skills such as teamwork, that enabled innovative use of these capabilities”
GQ4: work collaboratively as a professional • use logical and rational argument to persuade others, to negotiate with others • work collaboratively with different groups, identify the needs of others and build positive relationships • provide leadership within a team context by understanding responsibilities for organisation, planning, influencing and negotiating • work in a team (cooperate with all team members, share ideas, forgo personal recognition, negotiate solutions when opinions differ, resolve conflict, recognise strengths of other team members, share responsibility, convey a shared vision for the team, display a commitment to make the team function effectively)