Eve Sandberg Thursday, September 28,2000 For presentation to faculty during discussion of teaching and collaborative learning.
(See handouts for evaluations of members of team and for self reporting; for the poll 411 evaluations, I also conducted interviews with team members)
1) Student Teams in 100 and 200 level courses.
Teams meet to discuss readings, study in a group, complete group assignments.
One example of a group assignment is the simulated consultant teams to the Finance Minister of the country of Gortonia. I provide the sketch of the country and its profile. Then, in light of the course readings about industrial, environmental, and agricultural development, the team devises the broad principles of a national development strategy (offering their rationale and anticipating obstacles and offering solutions).
Other group assignments include answering an essay question in response to multiple readings and each team/group posting their responses on Alta Vista board.
One example of a team written essay after several units on African development would be to write on the question. What factors influenced the decisions of African policy makers in Tanzania and Zambia to pursue alternative strategies of development?
2) Students Workshop papers in the 300 level seminars in teams of 3-5
After covering a certain amount of common reading in the course (on both the seminar topic and on research design and writing) students read each other's drafts of their introductions and give each other feedback. They use my guidelines for writing a paper to help them respond to each other's writing. Later they read each other's first drafts and provide feedback.
3) POLT 411 Practicum in Policy Evaluation and Applied Research
Research Consultancy Student Teams
Sixteen students were divided into four teams to research and write consultant's binder reports for the client, the Ohio Legislative Black Caucus. The students also had to make public presentations (with large visuals) to the Caucus members at the State Capital at the end of the term. The topics which they researched and wrote on were:
1) Legislative Proposals to Address the Flight of HMOs from Rural and Urban areas2) Legislative Proposals to Improve Nursing Home Care
3) Legislative Proposals to Improve the Securing of Construction Grants by Minority Firms in Ohio
4) Evaluation of Six Month Old Regulations Passed to Improve Headstart and Possible Amendments to Offer.
Research included: interviews around the state with professionals and clients in the sector they were studying, meetings with lobbyists and legislators from all political parties and all parts of the state, comparative study of programs enacted in other countries, states, cities; research on likely changing federal regulations.
Choosing the teams: in the course and teacher evaluations, several students expressed a desire to self-select their teams and work with friends which would have been more fun and convenient. However, I had selected the teams in order to balance skills/strengths: (numerical manipulation; clear writing; excellent analytical abilities; hard worker /follow through; good public speaking skills, etc.) I had also selected who could take the practicum from a larger number of applicants than spots (just as seminars often have application processes).
Pedagogy of Class: after the first few weeks of common reading (academic writing vs. policy research presentation; models of research design and consultancy problem solving) the meeting time was run like a small consultancy firm with a weekly agenda and team reporting. As President of the firm, I also reported to the teams on the overall picture of our clients' concerns, shifting environment, and feedback on the teams. Each team talked through with the members of all teams possible research leads or problem solutions. My forced interaction directly with the client and occasionally through the teams required a very different kind of preparation and time frame designed around inflexible legislative imperatives. We practice-videotaped the presentations of individuals. The other members of the team watched and helped to critique their teammates. All teams did not have to do all video taping, just their team's.
Major issues of team teaching for the practicum were:
Time demanded to accomplish their tasks was far more than any course required
Time conflicts with other courses when they had to visit the state capital and accommodate the schedules of legislators, lobbyists, and state officials as well as travel to conduct interviews
Funding of costs of research (photocopying purchasing reports), printing, folders, travel, food, faxes, phone, parking, etc.
Conflicting Evaluations by team members of the contributions of particular individuals
Fury at Instructor for not being an expert in each of the assigned research areas
Instructor came to believe there were too many teams to oversee: three would be my maximum number the next time around
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Political Science Association and College Compact sponsored a discussion of Service and Learning Courses at our national conference over labor day weekend this past August 2000. (I was an invited paid participant though not a session leader.) On the topic of team grading, the majority of those who worked in service and learning projects with teams concluded that some mix of independent work and team work should be graded seperately and weighted in a combined score for a final grade. Other models existed but a mix seemed to be the preferred mode of grading.
4) Student - Faculty Joint Research for Conference Paper and Article Publication -1 worked with a McNair Student who had great determination but lacked some skills. Summer one, we talked about research design and conducted background research through the library. Summer two we did research interviews in Washington DC and NYC and Philadelphia. We wrote up. In November of the second year we presented at an international conference, (we practiced in advance) We later sent the paper for publication (it is under review). The student also had to present the first summer to the McNair program at the end of the summer. I worked with a wonderful student but I would probably decline to work again with a student who was just learning basic research skills.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group and Self Evaluation
Please give a letter grade and then comment on each member of your group regarding the following categories: Please photocopy this form and complete one sheet for each member of the group including yourself. Return to Eve Sandberg.
NAME of Group Member evaluating:___________________________________________
1) met regularly with the group at agreed upon times
2)did the assigned work on time
3)quality of work completed
4)was sensitive to the needs of others in the group
5)played a leadership role
6)assumed others would do the work and was mainly a free rider with occasional input
7) Special skills brought to the group: (conceptualization of research design; quantitative skills facilitator skills; conceptualization of written product;)
8) Special problems introduced into the group:
Grade you would assign this person for the course:_________
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Course and Teacher Evaluation for Polt 411. (return to Tracy)
1) This course helped me improve my research skills including conceptualizing a research strategy, utilization of various sources and data bases, and conceptualization of the written presentation of the project.
1)strongly disagree 2)disagree 3) no change 4) agree 5) strongly agree
2) Working on this project with my group helped me to improve the clarity of my writing
3) The work load for the course was
1) much too light 2) a bit light 3) just about right 4) a bit too much 5) much too much
4) The readings assigned in this course that explained the differences between academic writing and policy analysis writing was
1) not at all useful 2) hardly useful 3) interesting 4) helpful 5)very helpful
5) The readings in this course that analyzed the role of the consultant and the steps in a consultancy (including such things as letters of understanding, etc) was
1) not at all useful 2) hardly useful 3) interesting 4) helpful 5) very helpful
6) Although we worked in teams on various topics, the Professor imposed her view of the issues on our group (please note the standard answers are reversed)
1)strongly agree 2)agree 3) sometimes occurred 4) disagree 5) strongly disagree
7) I felt we could approach the professor for help as we needed it and she was accessible and understanding
1)strongly disagree 2)disagree 3) sometimes available 4) agree 5) strongly agree
8) I felt participation in this course helped me better understand my strengths and weaknesses when working in a group
1)strongly disagree 2)disagree 3) no change in understanding 4) agree 5) strongly agree
9) Participating in this course helped me better understand my strengths and weaknesses when making public presentations
1)strongly disagree 2)disagree 3) no change 4) agree 5) strongly agree
10) Overall, I will look back on this course and rate this course learning experience on a scale of 1to 5 (with 5 being excellent) as:
1) G-dawful 2) poor 3) average 4) good 5) excellent
11) Compared to all other professors at Oberlin College on a scale of I to 5 (with 5 being excellent), I would rate this professor as:
1) G-dawful 2) poor 3) average 4) good 5) excellent
12) This course should be taught again in some form
1)strongly disagree 2)disagree 3) no change 4) agree 5) strongly agree
13) In the current pedagogical literature, this course is considered a "service and learning" course. There should be more like this offered in the curriculum.
1)strongly disagree 2)disagree 3) this one is enough 4) agree 5) strongly agree
Write Comments below: ( to Eve, Members of the Politics Department, others who might read this)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your name____________________ Class: Polt______________ / Prof. Sanberg
After writing the names of your group's members in the boxes on the left, please place a letter grade in each box (evaluating each member according to each category)
|
Group Member's Name |
meets regularly with group |
quality of work |
does the work on time |
is sensitive to the needs of others |