13 Group Application Activities

Group application activities are the core of the TBL learning module in that, when facilitated well, students learn by doing and achieve a higher level learning in doing so. When designed and facilitated effectively, the results of a group application activity can be rich and exciting (Michaelsen & Sweet, 2008; Sibley & Ostafichuk, 2015).

While an instructor may choose to attach a mark to group application activities, they are generally assessment activities (ungraded) that are constructed intentionally to support low/no stakes learning to achieve module outcomes and provide real-time, formative feedback. These activities usually occur at the end of a TBL learning module and consume the bulk of synchronous class time. It is here that students will consolidate their content acquisition and understanding. When well designed and implemented, students are engaged in critical discussion and higher levels of learning are fostered.

Designing Group Application Activities Using the 4S Framework

Design of the group application activities will likely be the most challenging and time consuming part of adapting of your course to TBL. Group application activities should be developed with the 4S model in mind:

1) Significant Problem

To gain student buy in and engagement, it is important that activities be meaningful and relevant to the students. Group application activities should be designed to expose and immerse students in real world problems that they are likely to encounter in their chosen profession or vocation. This brings us again to the outcome design question: “What do I want the students to be able to DO when they have completed this module?”

To be significant, the problem also needs to be rich and challenging in order to engage the whole team, rather than something that one person can answer on their own or by doing an internet search. The problems should be “messy” enough that it cannot be solved by simply knowing content or conducting a Google search. Teams will have to work together to apply the content knowledge and apply, analyze and evaluate (Michaelsen & Sweet, 2008; Sibley & Ostafichuk, 2015; Sibley & Roberson, 2016).

2) Same Problem

Teams should simultaneously be working on the same problem in order to further foster engagement and interaction between the teams when the activity is discussed in the larger group. When teams work on different activities, each team effectually becomes the de facto “expert” on that topic and others will not typically present challenges to their conclusions. When all groups are engaged in the same problem, there is energy and focus to contribute contradictory conclusions to the discussion (Michaelsen & Sweet, 2008; Sibley & Ostafichuk, 2015).

3) Specific Choice

In seeking to foster higher order thinking, cognitive research suggests that students should be engaged to process information with the goal of making a specific decision. In a real-time, facilitated discussion of a group application activity, problems with succinct and specific responses make the most sense. And, when the problem is significant and messy enough, the discussion becomes more about the rationale than the specific response.

In many cases, the easiest form of a specific response format is a multiple choice question. However, group application activity responses can also be structured around a gallery walk, a one to two word response to a prompt, or identifying a field or point on an image or map. It is beyond the scope of this guide to detail the essential components and process involved in developing high quality multiple choice questions or other activities, but these should be undertaken with intention using best practices and evidence.

While teams will generally want to know the “right answer,” group application activities do not necessarily require a correct and incorrect response as the purpose is to generate discussion through defense of a response. It is here that the learning is most rich (Michaelsen & Sweet, 2008; Sibley & Ostafichuk, 2015).

4) Simultaneous Report

A typical practice in classrooms is sequential reporting where teams reveal their responses one by one. The power of the first response has been shown to introduce a type of cognitive bias that Michaelsen and Sweet call “answer drift” (Michaelsen & Sweet, 2008, p. 22). In answer drift, subsequent teams begin to align their original response to a question with the team that first reported, even if it is not correct or warrants challenge. Not only does this limit learning, but also impairs discussion and engagements. By facilitating simultaneous reporting on a problem, students are more likely to engage in defense and discussion of their response (Michaelsen & Sweet, 2008; Sibley & Ostafichuk, 2015).

Group Application Activity Facilitation

Facilitation of effective group application activities that support learning is an art form that takes practice. It is here that educators truly become the “guide from the side” and can be an uncomfortable experience at first when they relinquish control of the process as students actively engage with the construction of their own learning (Gullo et al., 2015; Lane, 2008; Sibley & Ostafichuk, 2015). It is highly recommended that instructors new to TBL attend a TBL Fundamentals workshop to gain education and resources on how to facilitate an effective group application activity.

Implementation and facilitation of a group application activity forms the main body of this phase of a learning module. This body is broken into 4 stages:

Introduction

The key here is consistency. When the group application activities occur the same way every time, students know what to anticipate and quickly transition from the RAP to team engagement. Whether facilitated in person or remotely, it is important that students have the tools they require to engage in the group application tasks. This may include providing additional resources, but also refers to the making sure the outcome expectations are clear (Sibley & Ostafichuk, 2015).

Team Discussion

While the focus of the team discussion stage may be on the students working in their groups, the role of the instructor is far from passive. During the team discussion, the instructor should be moving from team to team, whether in-person or during video conferenced break out groups, to track progress, monitor discussion and respond to questions that will avoid giving the answer, but offer support in the right direction. Due to the often loud and animated nature of this stage, this can be a great opportunity for the instructor to covertly assess learning through direct observation (Sibley & Ostafichuk, 2015).

Instructors can support students in this by further facilitating the logistics. Instructors should set a timeline for expected completion of the activities, but monitor progress and adapt as required. Having students begin their team discussion phase by routinely assigning roles such as facilitator, timekeeper and documenter can help them to ensure that everyone has a chance to speak, the team stays on the timeline and that their work has been recorded for the reporting stage of the activity.

Simultaneous Reporting

The next phase of the group application activity body is taken directly from the 4S elements of the design. In this phase, the instructor facilitates all of the teams to report their answer at the same time and for other teams to see all of the answers at the same time, thus preventing response bias and influencing the discussion to follow (Gullo et al., 2015; Michaelsen & Sweet, 2008; Roberson & Franchini, 2014; Sibley & Ostafichuk, 2015). This can be facilitated in many different ways depending on the modality of delivery (in-person vs remote). The simplest way of doing this in person is with the use of lettered response placards where teams hold up the letter corresponding to the response choice they have made.

Class Discussion

Immediately following the reporting phase is the class, or inter-team discussion. This is arguably the most rich, dynamic, engaging and challenging point for an instructor of a TBL module. Whether innate or learned, it is vital that a TBL instructor possess some personal characteristics that will optimize the safe learning environment for students. Instructors need to be aware of both verbal and non-verbal communication, cognizant of their own non-verbal and emotional responses, open to challenges from students, and vested in the value of TBL. While the instructor is not directly delivering content, it is perhaps even more important that they are a content expert in order to smoothly facilitate and direct the discussion (Gullo et al., 2015; Lane, 2008; Sibley & Ostafichuk, 2015).

It is important to remember that the discussion phase is not a delivery of content, but rather giving students space to respond, challenge and explore their learning in a supported manner. The instructor does this through a variety of strategies:

• Ask neutral and open ended questions that inspire students to critique, analyze and justify their own response and the responses of other teams. Use a variety of questioning strategies that seek to clarify, elaborate and probe.
• Ensure individual accountability by incorporating strategies that solicit responses from individuals, even those who are reticent to speak up in class.
• Wait for students to respond. This may mean uncomfortable silence that feels longer than necessary, particularly in a remote delivery context, to allow students time to formulate a response and deliver it.
• Rephrase or restate student responses to ensure clarity for both the instructor and for teams to respond to.
• Facilitate the discussion, but avoid joining in. There may or may not be a “correct” answer to the task, but to this end, the instructor should defer revealing of an answer until the discussion has been exhausted.
• Students will seek resolution in the form of correct or mostly correct/best answer and time should be managed such that this can be provided (Gullo et al., 2015; Michaelsen & Sweet, 2008; Sibley & Ostafichuk, 2015).