Jumpstarting Team Cohesion with Team Activity Debriefings
- PDF / 396,566 Bytes
- 7 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 58 Downloads / 231 Views
SHORT COMMUNICATION
Jumpstarting Team Cohesion with Team Activity Debriefings Laura Madson 1
&
Christopher M. Burns 2
# International Association of Medical Science Educators 2019
Abstract Although peer evaluations are essential to team-based learning, they can be problematic. Team activity debriefings (TAD) are advantageous because they focus on the team’s problem-solving strategies and teamwork skills. Students (N = 100) who used both tools reported that TADs were more helpful in developing team cohesion, helping students understand the characteristics of well-functioning teams, and helping students work better as a team. Peer evaluations were more helpful in evaluating and improving their own contributions to the team. Using both tools may be the best way to foster teamwork skills and hold students accountable for making positive contributions to the team. Keywords Team-based learning . Peer evaluation . Team cohesion . Feedback
Background Peer evaluation is an essential element of team-based learning because it is the primary mechanism by which students can hold their teammates accountable for making a positive contribution to team tasks [1–3]. This accountability addresses a key source of student apprehension about teamwork projects based on their previous non-TBL experience because individuals may have performed poorly or not done their fair share of the work without repercussions. The peer evaluation gives each student control over a piece of each teammates’ assessment through narrative feedback and/or points that he/she can use to reward teammates who reliably make a positive contribution to the team and to hold some sway over teammates who fail to do so. Although much has been written about peer evaluations [1, 2, 4–6], practical and conceptual problems remain. Practically,
* Laura Madson [email protected] Christopher M. Burns [email protected] 1
Department of Psychology, New Mexico State University, Box 30001/MSC 3452, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA
2
Biomedical Education Department, College of Osteopathic Medicine, California Health Sciences University, Clovis, CA 93612, USA
new TBL adopters must wade through a variety of ways to conduct peer evaluation process. There are at least five distinct methods for scoring and integrating peer evaluations into students’ final grades [7]. Instructors must decide if and how to incorporate peer evaluations into course grades. For example, one of us (CMB) has used peer evaluations at five medical schools, none of which had points attached. The other (LM) incorporates the average of teammates’ ratings as 10% of each student’s final grade. Alternatively, some faculty use points to evaluate the quality of the evaluations students give, rather than the ratings they receive from their peers. In short, a clear consensus about the best approach for peer evaluations is lacking, contributing to the already substantial workload of adopting TBL. Another practical issue is the number of peer evaluations to conduct during a course. Although midterm and final peer evaluations a
Data Loading...
