To adopt or not to adopt innovation: A case study of team-based learning

Mark Freeman

mark.freeman@sydney.edu.au mark.freeman@abdc.edu.au

Higher Education Academy Conference 2012

Outline

1. Context

2. Adoption drivers

3. Why adopt team-based learning

4. Initial experiences with TBL

5. Deeper and wider

6. Lessons from organisational research

7. Q & A

Context

• More ....

• Students

• Information

• Technology

• Accountability

• Research

• With less!

Adoption drivers

• Consider a recent innovation you’ve adopted. What influenced you? (Peer discussion)

• Bennett (2001) (n=231 academics)

• For: Large classes, uni policies, student expectations

• Against: Time, lack skills/training, inadequate facilities

•CCSF teachers more likely to adopt interactive techniques than ITTF teachers (Luddeke 2003)

Diffusion of innovation

Individual factors (Rogers ‘03)

• Relative advantages over what it replaces

• Cultural compatibility with potential adopters

• Complexity to understand and use

• Trialability – try incrementally before full commitment

• Visibility of results to other potential adopters

Factors beyond the individual

• Internal (centralised/faculty policy & resources like workshops, grants, support; adopters in other dept)

• External (literature, publisher resources, conference, community of practice)

The “Chasm”

Rogers Diffusion of Innovation

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Innovators2.5%

Early Adopters13.5%

Early Majority34%

Late Majority34%

Laggards 16%

Cum

ulat

ive

%

Why adopt Team-Based Learning?

• Reputable adopters

• Active international community of practice

• Literature• Deeper engagement (Haidet et al. 2012)• Improved problem solving (Koles 2010; Kelly 2005)• Better communication & teamwork (Thompson 2007)• AND teachers enjoy transformed classroom

Then why limited diffusion?

8

Learn concept

s

Apply concepts

TraditionalTeam-based

Readinessassessme

nt

Readings

Lecture

In Class Out of Class

In ClassOut of Class

Team-based learning

Traditional

9

Team-based learning

Pre-class In-class

5 per course 1 or 2 per course

Prepare Indiv testTeam testContingent teachingTeam problemTeams debateDiscuss self/peer feedbackRate self/peers

In-classPre-class

Initial student TBL perceptions

Agree Disagree

Encouraged preparation 99% 1%

Developed team skills 80% 7%

Developed problem solving 80% 6%

Ensures all contribute to team 94% 1%

Motivated progressive learning 81% 7%

Overall - recommend TBL next year 80% 7%

Small group decision – 2 mins

Consider 4 possible considerations for evaluating a potential teaching innovation (like TBL).

1. Replace teaching workload

2. Deliver information to students

3. Engage students in active learning

4. Help students develop and apply new concepts

The two most important considerations for HEA Conference delegates would be:

A) Combination of 1 and 2

B) Combination of 2 and 3

C) Combination of 3 and 4

Deeper and wider

Case study • 4 academics• 3 supporters

Survey • 44 from TBL listserv• 83% academics mostly teaching UG• Items about TBL specifics AND adoption motives• Some multi-choice, multi-answer, rank and free response

Considerations prioritised when evaluating teaching innovations (like TBL)

NB. Sample is biased towards CCSF teachers

Consideration Most 2nd 3rd 4th Least

Replace teaching workload 0% 0% 10% 63% 27%

Deliver information to students 5% 2% 64% 21% 7%

Engage students in active learning 64% 36% 0% 0% 0%

Help students develop and apply new concepts 29% 57% 12% 2% 0%

Other 6% 12% 35% 18% 29%

Relative advantages of TBL over what it replaced (or intended to replace)

Free response (n=32) # %Students engage better and learn from each other 22 69%Students engage more actively with concepts 17 53%Students learn more and more critically 14 44%Students exhibit more responsibility and accountability for own learning 10 31%Students prepare better for class 7 22%Students enjoy class more 10 31%Other student advantages 5 16%Academics enjoy teaching more 9 28%Other academic advantages 4 12%

Relative disadvantages of TBL over what it replaced (or intended to replace)

Free response (n=31) # %

Academics invest more time earlier in term getting organised 15 48%

Academics uncomfortable as facilitator 10 33%

Student resistance 8 26%

Other 4 13%

None 4 13%

NB. Although fewer disadvantages identified, more relate to academics

Compatibility of TBL with existing teaching culture for you and your colleagues

Free response # %

Very compatible1 7 23%

Moderately compatible2 16 52%

Incompatible 8 26%

1. “Everyone wants active learning, but the transition from Powerpoint lectures is very hard”

2. “I believe it is compatible, but I believe there is some resistance to moving from lectures”

Complexity of understanding, learning and using TBL

Free response # %

Every step is challenging 4 9%

Some challenging elements 1 28 65%

Mostly straight forward with some small challenges 10 24%

Easy and straight forward 1 2%

1. “I find it difficult to explain it to students so that they understand the method will help them learn - they are so fearful that their grade will be adversely affected”

Ease of trying TBL before full adoption

Free response # %

Full commitment to all aspects of TBL is essential from the start because partial adoption doesn't really work.

12 29%

It is possible, but not easy, to partially introduce TBL and subsequently build up from there.

16 39%

Partial adoption of TBL is easy and there is a natural progression to the complete TBL model over subsequent semesters 13 32%

Visibility of TBL results

Free response # %They are clearly visible to me and others 9 22%

Results are clearly visible to me, but only partially visible to others 23 56%

Results are only visible to me, not others 9 22%

Lessons from organisational research for engaging the mainstream to adopt teaching innovations

Iterating across three domains (in order):

1. Leaders walking the talk and motivating their distributed leaders likewise

2. Match rhetoric with policies & procedures that action reciprocal processes to initiate & sustain change

3. Match above two with supporting resources

Treleaven et al (2011)

Thank you