Read on Twitter
Thread on Team-Based Learning #TBL @TBLearning - warning 
https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="⚠️" title="Warnsignal" aria-label="Emoji: Warnsignal">- this is very long, but explains the what, how and why of TBL.
If you are an instructor at any age, and in any environment, TBL is an extremely powerful method for improving basic knowledge and application of concepts.
As an instructor, my dream outcome for teaching is for students to come away with actual knowledge. I dream of students doing their pre-reading to a deep level, and of the room buzzing from deep discussions of complex concepts and situations. Both of these are achieved with #TBL
True application can only be achieved when there is a sufficient knowledge base. With standard class instruction, there will typically be a wide variety in knowledge levels between students and limited numbers of students who are able to apply concepts at the end of a session.
This is taken care of in #TBL because there is an embedded individual assessment (Individual Readiness Assessment Test; IRAT) at the beginning of the class. This forces students to come prepared as it impacts their grade and increases each student’s base level of knowledge.
What about varying levels of basic knowledge from the previous-reading between students? As with any test there will be some variation in performance. So we still have a problem with varying knowledge levels between students. However, #TBL has a unique solution to this problem.
Immediately after the IRAT, students do the same test in teams. This is called the TRAT (Team Readiness Assessment Test). In the TRAT, students are able to discuss each question with their team members and come to consensus on an answer.
This involves #peerinstruction, with the more knowledgeable team members able to teach the less knowledgeable members without intervention by the instructor. This helps embed learning for those teaching and ensures a more even level of knowledge between students.
All of this is achieved without the instructor teaching. And, because it forces discussion between students on a team, the team performs better than the majority of individuals - more heads are better than one. The result is that students have a higher knowledge base.
Another unique feature of the TRAT is immediate feedback. When a team selects an answer choice, they instantly get feedback regarding whether their choice is correct or not. If it is incorrect, the team gets additional choices, but earn less credit for each additional selection.
This forces the teams to develop reasoning for answer choices and to think about why answer choices may be incorrect. Overall, the TRAT has the effect of correcting errors of understanding naturally and spontaneously.
After the TRAT, the instructor can go over any items that several teams got wrong, again to correct residual errors of understanding. There can also be a mini lecture on difficult concepts that remain. The effect here is to ensure an even, high knowledge base.
The trick here for an instructor is to figure out what basic knowledge students need in order to solve authentic, complex problems. This then leads to selection of appropriate pre-reading materials, from which the RAT questions are written.
So now you have a set of students with a high knowledge base, and you didn’t have to do much, if any, direct teaching. The next stage is the application phase.
In the application phase, teams tackle authentic, complex scenarios in which they have to apply their knowledge to come up with the best solution to a problem. These application questions are tackled by teams and are open book, meaning they can use any resources.
The application exercises adhere to what is called a ‘4 S’ framework. The 4 Ss are: Same problem, Significant problem, Specific choice and Simultaneous response.
Same problem: all teams tackle the same question at one time, rather than each team tackling different questions and reporting back to the whole group. This ensures that the learning is the same for each team, rather than fragmented, varying by team.
Significant problem: the problem must be significant to the learners, otherwise the learners will not be motivated to engage deeply with the question. The question must matter to the learners. This means the questions should be authentic, real world problems.
Specific choice: in a good ‘4 S’ application exercise, all options (usually in MCQ format) should be plausible and ‘correct’. This means the teams are forced to reason through the options and select the BEST choice that solves the problem.
This means that application questions are very different from standard MCQs, which typically have one demonstrably correct answer and 3-4 demonstrably incorrect answers. As a result, teams are forced to develop a rationale rather than just picking out the correct option.
Simultaneous response: once all teams have selected an answer, they reveal their answer choice simultaneously with all other teams. This prevents ‘answer creep’, where a team may change their answer if they see they are the only team selecting that answer choice.
This helps to solidify a team’s identity and rationale for their answer choice, because they may see that they have a different answer choice than others, and leads to teams having to be prepared to defend their answer choice.
Once team choices have been displayed, the instructor now facilitates a phase of inter-team discussion, where the teams are asked to explain the rationale behind their answer choices.
The wonderful aspect of this phase is that the ensuing discussion is deep and rich, because it has been well-fed by the preceding IRAT/TRAT phase that created a deep knowledge base.
Importantly, teams may have chosen the same answer choice but have used a different rationale. This can be brought out by the facilitator. It is like a court room, where the facilitator encourages the prosecution to build a case for a given answer choice.
During this phase, students learn from hearing the rationale for a given answer by other teams. It helps broaden perspectives and look at a problem from different angles.
The facilitator should bring out rationales for different answer choices by calling on other teams that chose different answers. This can be pitted as the ‘case for the defense’. If you do your job correctly, there should now be a back and forth between teams.
The discussion will be rich and vigorous, and will come from a high knowledge base. Once all arguments have been teased out, the instructor can then reveal their ‘preferred’ answer (remember, all options should be correct, so this is the option that the instructor thinks is best.
The facilitator should not instruct directly in the application phase, but help to bring out nuances in answer choices and relevant issues and concerns related to the question. As a result the teams will be guided to think about the issues that matter.
The result is a very powerful learning environment, and as an instructor, you will be left with a massive smile on your face as you realize that the students really get it.
This is why I use and promote #TBL. It is an extremely effective means of achieving a high level of application for a large class, and doesn’t involve a huge amount of direct teaching. However, designing the TBL sessions is very time-consuming and often an iterative process.
Nonetheless, the reward from the hard work of design of TBL sessions is more than worth it.
I’d encourage all instructors who teach large classes to look into using TBL for these reasons. /END
I’d encourage all instructors who teach large classes to look into using TBL for these reasons. /END
