Options
Dialogues in team-based learning's team readiness assurance tests : are teams ready to dialogue?
Author
Lim, Fun Siong
Supervisor
Chye, Stefanie Yen Leng
Abstract
Team-Based Learning (TBL) is a cooperative approach that has been widely adopted in higher education in recent years. One of its appeals is the claim to produce self-directed high performing learning teams. First developed by Larry Michaelsen in 1979, the approach asserts that by adhering to four essential elements, teams would increase the quality of peer talk for decision-making over time (Michaelsen et al., 2004).
This study argues that there is a paucity of qualitative studies on the quality of peer talk in TBL. Qualitative studies are necessary to provide direct evidence and deep insights into how teams are making decisions. In particular, the quality of talk in the Team Readiness Assurance Test or tRAT phase (which is considered as the backbone of TBL) has mainly been inferred from indirect quantitative methods (Reimschisel et al., 2017). In addition, qualitative findings from other similar approaches suggest that some of the recommended tRAT processes may not foster quality peer talk with time.
Likewise, the few TBL studies that have analysed team discourses also identified situational factors that continue to affect the quality of peer talk over time. However, these qualitative TBL studies either lack a coherent theoretical framework in characterising the quality of peer talk or have not involved the tRAT phase. Furthermore, their TBL implementations contain variations from the recommended process. While variation is an accepted practice within the TBL community (Compton et al., 2016), such freedom also makes interpretation challenging. Hence, further discourse studies would be needed to provide deeper insight into the quality of peer talk under different tRAT implementations.
This study aims to address the above research gaps by adopting an embedded multiple case study (Stake, 2006) that follows the tRAT discussions of eight teams (n = 46) across three classes with varying practices. It seeks to uncover the types of talk these teams employ for decision-making during their second and fifth (last) tRAT sessions, how and why they employ the different types of talk.
Using Wegerif’s (2013) dialogic theory of learning as the theoretical and analytical framework, the study finds that differences in views are necessary for high quality peer talk or exploratory talk. However, the requirement for teams to submit specific answers that are graded within a limited time motivated teams to predominantly adopt lower quality or cumulative talk for decision-making. This could occur even when the questions encouraged diverse views and when individual members had sufficient knowledge to engage each other dialogically. The study also offers some evidence that 1) feedback revealing dialogic gaps between the teams and the faculty, 2) symmetric peer relationships, 3) perception that dialogue is valuable for learning and 4) opportunities to appeal and improve grades could encourage exploratory talk during and after the tRAT.
Based on these results, the study suggests the need to alleviate students’ concerns with grades and time, and to foster social norms that encourage symmetric peer relationships and a dialogic disposition towards learning so that students are ready to dialogue during the tRAT phase of TBL.
This study argues that there is a paucity of qualitative studies on the quality of peer talk in TBL. Qualitative studies are necessary to provide direct evidence and deep insights into how teams are making decisions. In particular, the quality of talk in the Team Readiness Assurance Test or tRAT phase (which is considered as the backbone of TBL) has mainly been inferred from indirect quantitative methods (Reimschisel et al., 2017). In addition, qualitative findings from other similar approaches suggest that some of the recommended tRAT processes may not foster quality peer talk with time.
Likewise, the few TBL studies that have analysed team discourses also identified situational factors that continue to affect the quality of peer talk over time. However, these qualitative TBL studies either lack a coherent theoretical framework in characterising the quality of peer talk or have not involved the tRAT phase. Furthermore, their TBL implementations contain variations from the recommended process. While variation is an accepted practice within the TBL community (Compton et al., 2016), such freedom also makes interpretation challenging. Hence, further discourse studies would be needed to provide deeper insight into the quality of peer talk under different tRAT implementations.
This study aims to address the above research gaps by adopting an embedded multiple case study (Stake, 2006) that follows the tRAT discussions of eight teams (n = 46) across three classes with varying practices. It seeks to uncover the types of talk these teams employ for decision-making during their second and fifth (last) tRAT sessions, how and why they employ the different types of talk.
Using Wegerif’s (2013) dialogic theory of learning as the theoretical and analytical framework, the study finds that differences in views are necessary for high quality peer talk or exploratory talk. However, the requirement for teams to submit specific answers that are graded within a limited time motivated teams to predominantly adopt lower quality or cumulative talk for decision-making. This could occur even when the questions encouraged diverse views and when individual members had sufficient knowledge to engage each other dialogically. The study also offers some evidence that 1) feedback revealing dialogic gaps between the teams and the faculty, 2) symmetric peer relationships, 3) perception that dialogue is valuable for learning and 4) opportunities to appeal and improve grades could encourage exploratory talk during and after the tRAT.
Based on these results, the study suggests the need to alleviate students’ concerns with grades and time, and to foster social norms that encourage symmetric peer relationships and a dialogic disposition towards learning so that students are ready to dialogue during the tRAT phase of TBL.
Date Issued
2022
Call Number
LB1032 Lim
Date Submitted
2022