journalism & mass communication educator-2014-han-1077695813517887

http://jmc.sagepub.com/Communication Educator

Journalism & Mass

http://jmc.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/02/06/1077695813517887The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1077695813517887 published online 6 February 2014Journalism & Mass Communication Educator

Gang (Kevin) Han and Jay NewellTeam-Based Learning in Mass Communication Theory Classes

Enhancing Student Learning in Knowledge-Based Courses: Integrating

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Association for Education in Journalism & Mass Communication

at: can be foundJournalism & Mass Communication EducatorAdditional services and information for

http://jmc.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jmc.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Feb 6, 2014OnlineFirst Version of Record >> at UNIV FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS on February 24, 2014jmc.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIV FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS on February 24, 2014jmc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 1 17

AEJMC 2014Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1077695813517887

jmce.sagepub.com

Article

Enhancing Student Learning in Knowledge-Based Courses: Integrating Team-Based Learning in Mass Communication Theory Classes

Gang (Kevin) Han1 and Jay Newell1

AbstractThis study explores the adoption of the team-based learning (TBL) method in knowledge-based and theory-oriented journalism and mass communication (J&MC) courses. It first reviews the origin and concept of TBL, the relevant theories, and then introduces the TBL method and implementation, including procedures and assessments, employed in an undergraduate mass communication theory class in a large Midwest research university. Students showed significantly improved group knowledge versus individual knowledge over an entire semester through readiness assurance tests (RAT), which were also demonstrated in a prepost survey and two peer evaluations. The significance of this study concerning students learning effectiveness and outcomes as well as its pedagogical implications for the J&MC field and beyond are discussed.

Keywordsteam-based learning, mass communication, theory course, teaching pedagogy

Journalism and mass communication (J&MC) is a field that traditionally emphasizes training students with hands-on professional skills. Knowledge-based courses that introduce theoretical concepts and research methods sometimes pale in comparison

1Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA

Corresponding Author:Gang (Kevin) Han, Greenlee School of Journalism and Communication, Iowa State University, 119 Hamilton Hall, Ames, IA 50011, USA. Email: [email protected]

517887 JMCXXX10.1177/1077695813517887Journalism & Mass Communication EducatorHan and Newellresearch-article2014

at UNIV FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS on February 24, 2014jmc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

2 Journalism & Mass Communication Educator

with production courses in keeping students enthusiasm. However, the mission of instructors is to make the classes conducive not only to learning what and how but also to inquiring about the whys. Theory and research courses are therefore an inte-gral part of students professional development and their intellectual growth as citizens of the world.

This study evaluates the application of the team-based learning (TBL) approach to a mass communication theory course. The pioneering adoption of TBL in a J&MC theory course aimed to boost learning effectiveness by creating a student-centered, self-moti-vated, and cooperative learning environment. Employing TBL, students of various dis-ciplinary backgrounds worked in teams to facilitate their understanding of theories and research about media and mass communication and to enhance their ability to perform critical and creative evaluations of the role and influence of mass media in the society.

In this study, we review the origin and the concept of TBL and the theories relevant to TBL and then introduce the TBL methods adopted in an undergraduate mass com-munication theory course. After reporting the assessment results, we discuss the sig-nificance of this study and its wider pedagogical implications.

Introduction: Team-Based Learning

TBL is a small group learning method that emphasizes the optimization of student participation and the promotion of active learning.1 TBL has been proposed and pro-moted by Michaelsen and colleagues since the late 1970s.2 It originated as a way of extending the business-world practice of working in teams to the college classroom.3

As advocated, the goal of TBL is to encourage active and effective learning experi-ences through teamwork during in-class interactions.4 In TBL environments, small groups of students are assigned to work in teams throughout the entire semester. Class time is used to test on pre-lecture readings, to discuss reading assignments, and to apply concepts initially learned from individual readings to in-class activities. Through teamwork and collaborative learning, TBL is claimed to shift the focus of a class away from instructor-led lectures to student-led studying.5 As a result, TBL is believed to have positive impacts on certain aspects of student learning experience and outcomes,6 such as critical thinking skills, understanding of the course concepts, application of the course content to problem solving and decision making, teamwork skill development, as well as appreciation of using team approaches to solving intellectual tasks.7 It should be noted that while the positive aspects of TBL have been well documented during the past four decades, its potential downsides, such as possible free riding of team members, influence of dominant teammate(s) on teamwork, have not been ade-quately explored in the TBL literature.

As a pedagogical innovation, TBL has been integrated into a variety of disciplines, including business, management and accounting,8 engineering,9 medical education, health care, veterinary medicine,10 sciences,11 legal studies,12 and interdisciplinary courses.13 It has also been used in large classes, online courses, and classes with diverse types of students in different cultural settings.14 The application of TBL in the humanities and social sciences,15 however, is relatively rare. While a few studies have


Han and Newell 3

assessed the value of group work in non-journalism skills courses,16 only a few studies have assessed the adoption of informal TBL techniques in the J&MC curriculum.17 None have tested the adoption of the formal TBL program, with its standardized pro-cedures. In addition, no studies have extended formal TBL or informal group work into J&MC theory courses. This study aims to fill the gap.

Theoretical Origins

TBL is regarded as an instructional strategy, not merely a teaching technique.18 Pedagogically, team learning itself is not new and has origins from multiple educa-tional theorists.19 As Gomez, Wu, and Passerini argue, TBL-related theories are pri-marily based on constructivism and social learning.20

Constructivism centers on the paradigm shift from the traditional teacher-to-learner knowledge transfer to a learner-as-an-active-agent learning process,21 where students contribute to developing their own knowledge through engaging in pre- and in-class activities. Students who participate in these student-centered instructional practices perceive a more meaningful learning experience and as argued, in some cases actu-ally learn more than students in conventional learning situations.22

This active engagement of learning process relies on students accountability, the social foundation of TBL.23 To a certain extent, TBL enhances students sense of own-ership and accountability as designer of and decider about their own educational expe-riences. Their social connection in the classroom then affects their performance, self-efficacy, and motivation to learn in a positive way.24

Banduras social learning theory,25 whose early notion focuses on modeling the action of others, serves as another important conceptual source for TBL. The TBL environment creates a relatively close space, such as a lab-like classroom, where individual students behavioral and learning outcomes can be influenced by observing the behavior of team-mates or students in other groups. In addition, active and positive learning behaviors can be rewarded through the testing and peer-evaluation mechanism, which can also be pro-moted through observation, retention, and replication26 in an ideal situation.

Social constructivist approach and social learning experience have been applied through classroom practices, in particular, using small groups in teaching, such as col-laborative learning,27 based on student self-organization within each module, and coop-erative learning, based on an instructor-driven structure of the team process.28 Studies have seen higher levels of learning effectiveness in face-to-face collaboration as opposed to individualistic learning.29 Developed from small group learning, TBL is also regarded as one form of small group learning,30 which depends on the social exchange of informa-tion between students in organized small group settings and highly structured team activ-ities.31 TBL combines the features of both collaborative and cooperative learning. Fink maintains that the effectiveness of small group learning is further boosted in TBL,32 as it transfers small groups into teams.33 The team environment is believed to improve peer relationships and then help fulfill students sense of belonging or sense of agency34 in the process of negotiating and mastering course content with their teammates.35 At the same time, the TBL approach highlights team learning as the center of students



learning experience, around which learning activities are based on group interaction.36 In this respect, individual learning and learning from others can be carried out in an integral whole37 in either small or large classes.

In the field of J&MC, team learning has been identified as a principal pedagogical trend, as teamwork is one of the dimensions central to the objectives in communica-tion curricula.38 College educators pay increasing attention to teamwork spirit and skills, which also respond to the needs of the communication industry. However, no previous studies were found that have discussed the role of a formal TBL pedagogy in J&MC theory courses.

Applying TBL to a J&MC Theory Course

The TBL approach arguably is applicable to any context that allows students to work in teams with a predefined procedure of various team activities.39 Student engagement is a challenge for faculty members teaching theory or knowledge-based courses. This study anchors on a specific communication theory class to discuss the learning and motivational opportunities TBL can bring to the J&MC curriculum.

The undergraduate course, Mass Communication Theory, is offered at the authors university every fall semester to acquaint students with theory and research in the mass communication field, including definitions, connotations, and scope of theory and the basics of research methodology. TBL was expected to improve student atten-dance and engagement, help them better absorb the course materials, build their team-work and effective collaboration skills, and enhance facultystudent interaction.

According to Michaelsen and Sweet,40 the primary learning objective of TBL is to go beyond simply covering content and to focus on ensuring that students have the opportunity to practice, using course concepts to solve problems. TBL is thus designed to provide students with both conceptual and procedural knowledge. With regard to the objectives of the specific course, students are expected to better understand theory and research about media and mass communication; know how to apply theories and research to analyze media use behavior, professional practice, and a variety of mass communication activities and phenomena influencing others and themselves; know how to critically evaluate the role of mass media as well as the theories and research about them; and finally, become able to critically assess study designs and data analy-sis techniques used in mass communication research.

The overarching research question of this study, therefore, is to address the extent to which the TBL approach will help achieve the desired learning outcomes and course objectives.

Method

Procedures and Activities

Adopting Michaelsens original guidelines on TBL41 with necessary modification, we incorporated TBL into the J&MC theory course with custom-made class modules. In


Han and Newell 5

TBL, a semester-long course can be divided into four to eight content-specific mod-ules of one to three weeks in duration per module. In this particular course, we focus on individual theories, against the background of the historical development of theo-retical ideas about mass communication. Each week students followed an iterative learning process featuring a sequence of activities. Specifically, we developed the following procedures (also shown in Figure 1) for this class:

Individual (iRAT)

Goal and objectives identification

Team formation and orientation

Pre-class reading assignments

Reading Assurance Process (RAP)

Team (tRAT)

Appeals

Instructor Review

Application Activities

Systematized Assessments

Figure 1. TBL components and procedure.Note. TBL = team-based learning; iRAT = Readiness Assurance Test for individual; tRAT = Readiness Assurance Test for team.



Team formation and orientation. In a TBL course, students are strategically organized into permanent groups for an entire semester. In this class, teams of three students each were created by the instructor. At first, students were randomly assigned to teams, and then re-assignments were made by the instructor to tap into the diverse backgrounds of the team members. The sorting criteria were based on students major, courses pre-viously taken, job/work/professional experience, and demographic attributes. Students were then oriented with the rationale and components of TBL.

Pre-class reading assignments. The instructor assigned readings according to topics or themes scheduled for discussion in the course syllabus. Students were required to complete reading assignments prior to the first class meeting of each week. It was students responsibility to complete the pre-class reading and acquire the basic knowl-edge needed for in-class teamwork that followed.

Readiness assurance process (RAP). A key component of TBL is to incentivize students to complete readings in advance of each class. Readiness assurance tests (RAT) for both individual (iRAT) and team (tRAT) were conducted to help students focus on important concepts and help the instructor assesses students level of preparation and comprehension.42 The tests incentivize student preparation for the classroom, increase student accountability to peers, and provide a foundation for team discussions about the learning objectives.

At the first class meeting of each week, a multiple-choice (ten to fifteen questions) test was given to each student. The test covered key concepts and knowledge points from that weeks readings (see sample questions in the appendix). The intention of the iRAT was to ensure that students were prepared for problem solving in subsequent class sessions.

After iRAT, the same test was immediately retaken as a team test using the IF-AT (Immediate Feedback Assessment Technique) scratch and win testing cards (see Figure 2). Students had engaged and thorough discussions about each question with their teammates based on their readings and their individual answers given previously. Teams negotiated which answer to choose and then scratched off an opaque coating slot on their answer form, hoping to find a star that indicates a correct answer. If the team did not discover a star, they continued to discuss the question and sequentially selected other choices. Every student left this test knowing the correct answer to every question.

Procedurally, at the beginning of each RAT session, each team received their team folder. The team folder contains the question sheets, individual answer sheets, an IF-AT form, and an appeal form. Teams were instructed to close all books and put away reading materials and waited for instructions to open the folder and began iRAT followed by tRAT. Once the two portions of the test were completed, students placed their individual answer sheets and the IF-AT form in their team folder. All folders were then returned to the instructor. The iRAT and tRAT tests were graded after class. Students received their individual and team scores weekly.

Appeals. At the conclusion of the team test, teams were given the opportunity to appeal incorrect responses. Teams went back into the reading material, researched the right


Han and Newell 7

answers, and could choose to complete the appeal form and present a scholarly written argument to defend their position. The appeals were considered outside of class time with results announced at the following class meeting. Only teams could appeal, and no individual appeals were accepted. In practice, teams rarely appealed the tRAT responses.

Instructors review. Although some students and professors prefer little to no lecturing in TBL-based classes,43 the authors deemed it necessary to provide explanations and invite discussions on troublesome theoretical topics. Following the in-class teamwork, the instructor provided a clarification in the form of a mini-lecture in the second class meeting of each week. The items that challenged students in iRAT often informed the focus of this clarification.

Application activities. Student-led discussions, group discussions, along with a term paper from each team, were combined as supplements to TBL, as they also targeted

Figure 2. Sample IF-AT form for tRAT.Note. IF-AT = Immediate Feedback Assessment Technique; tRAT = Readiness Assurance Test for team.



course objectives. These activities shifted the role of the instructor from dispenser of information to manager of the learning process. They also optimized the usage of class meeting time and improved the learning experience for both instructor and students.

Assessment of Learning Effectiveness

Systematized assessment plans were in place to evaluate the learning effectiveness of TBL, as well as to cut down on free riding and recognize individual contributions made to team efforts in this class.

First, iRAT was graded for individual students, while tRAT was evaluated with the scores each team received according to the tally marks on the IF-AT formfour points for one scratch, two points for two scratches, one point for three scratches, and zero if a team had to scratch all four squares to locate the correct answer.

Second, we conducted a prepost survey to compare students learning outcomes that could have been influenced by TBL. In the survey, we asked sixteen close-ended questions and four open-ended questions about mass communication theory and research. Students were asked to fill out the questionnaire at the beginning of the semester. In the final week, they answered the same questions once again. The data collected from the prepost survey were statistically analyzed. Qualitative responses provided by students were also evaluated.

Third, we carried out two peer evaluations, one in the middle of the semester and the other at the end. The two confidential evaluations, based in part on the Koles Method,44 assessed the learning process and experience from students perspective. Students evaluation focused on the preparation/reading outside of class and the per-formance in class for the TBL. Quantitative answers were obtained for the following three aspects: (1) Cooperative-learning skills, measured by four items about whether the teammate arrives on time and remains with the team during activities, demon-strates a good balance of active listening and participation, asks useful or probing questions, and shares information and personal understanding; (2) self-directed learning, measured by four items, is well prepared for team activities, shows appro-priate depth of knowledge, identifies limits of personal knowledge, and is clear when explaining things to others; (3) interpersonal skills, measured by four items, gives useful feedback to others, accepts useful feedback from others, is able to listen and understand what others are saying, and shows respect for the opinions and feelings of others. Students reported their evaluation on a four-point Likert-type scale (0 = never, 1 = sometimes, 2 = often, 3 = always). Data were statistically analyzed.

The qualitative assessment in the first peer evaluations included two questions: (1) What is the single most valuable contribution this person makes to your team? and (2) What is the single most important way this person could alter his or her behavior to more effectively help your team? Students wrote at least one sentence, but not more than three sentences, to respond to these questions. In the second evaluation, students were asked to compare their final evaluation responses with what they have given in the midterm evaluation. Then they provided an overall evaluation of the performance of their teammates in TBL over the semester. Their answers were content-analyzed.


Han and Newell 9

Findings

Student Profile

This class had thirty-two students for the fall semester of 2012. Among them, 56 per-cent were female and 44 percent male, with 44 percent in their junior year and 56 percent in their senior year. About 22 percent of students were majors in marketing/business, 44 percent in journalism or public relations, 19 percent in advertising, and the rest were majors in other disciplines (e.g., communication studies, graphic design, event management, physics). Ethnically, the majority of students were Caucasian, with one African American and two international students.

iRAT versus tRAT

Throughout the entire semester, the mean score of tRAT for all the eleven groups was eighty-two, with the highest eighty-eight and the lowest seventy-three (SD = 17.24). The mean score of iRAT for all thirty-two individual students was 53.1, with the high-est sixty-nine and the lowest thirty-seven (SD = 40.23). The mean tRAT score was significantly higher than the mean iRAT score (t = 28.9, p < .001).

PrePost Survey

With regard to the correct answers students gave to the sixteen multiple-choice ques-tions, the mean was 7.78 (SD = 1.93; 48 percent accuracy) in the pre-survey, and 12.90 (SD = 1.88; 80.1 percent accuracy) in the post-survey, with a significant difference between these two surveys (t = 5.12, p < .001).

As for the open-ended questions, the pre- and post-surveys had one common ques-tion that asked students to list the names of any mass media/communication or general communication theories. In the pre-survey, most students (94 percent) said that they could not recall any communication theories. Among theories mentioned by students, only one out of four were directly related to mass or general communication theories. In the post-survey, students in general gave more accurate answers. For example, about 63 percent students mentioned at least one specific theories, such as uses and gratification, diffusion of innovation, gatekeeping, or related notions, such as limited effect, magic bullet, critical and culture theory, and normative theory, to name a few.

In addition, we asked two more questions across both surveys, albeit with slightly different wording. In the pre-survey, we asked students to mention concepts learned in other courses but relevant to this course that they thought to be helpful when taking this course. Students believed that previous classes, such as anthropology, sociology, psychology, marketing, and non-mediated communication, were related to this course and helpful to achieve the course objectives. A few students mentioned relevant notions, such as media violence, social networking, media convergence, diffusion, gatekeepers, and opinion leaders. Fewer mentioned specific theories, such as spiral of science.



Relatedly, in the post-survey, we asked whether the content of this course was use-ful to other courses they would take. Almost all students gave positive responses. For example, this class has helped me read between the lines, to understand basic theo-ries of journalism and where theories come from, how to interpret media and the content they provide, and how people tend to view the media and how media affects their users; [I] learnt the process how the media have evolved and are evolving, with a new perspective of thinking, which helps to discover all different way to think about media, and many theories can be implied to future classes, or to apply to other research projects.

Meanwhile, we asked what students expected to learn from this course (pre-survey) and what they already learned (post-survey) that would be useful to their future chosen career. For the former, students hoped to learn more about theories and research meth-ods and understand the use and the effects of media in shaping peoples mind and behavior so as to further their knowledge of why things work the way they do when they dove into the job market. For the latter, students reported that they have had an increased level of understanding of the history of media and its importance, how the way a newsperson talks can affect peoples perceptions, as well as how to diffuse new ideas and how to effectively communicate. They believed that they would be able to turn the theories learned in this class to effective use in their work, to produce more accurate and unbiased information in media, to use all the facts and conduct research before making an opinion, and to use knowledge learned in this class to make informed and ethical decisions. All these would benefit their future career in communication.

Peer Evaluation

Students received highly positive assessments on their team performance from their teammates for the midterm (M = 32.09; SD = 9.32) and final (M = 32.83; SD = 7.18) peer evaluations, with no significant difference in mean values.

With regard to the two open-ended questions of the midterm evaluation, almost all students gave positive assessment about their teammates when asked to identify the single most valuable contribution their teammates made to the team. They also offered suggestions to their teammates about one single most important way the student reviewed could take toward more effective team participation, with examples in the following grouped by aspects: (1) TBL preparation: be more prepared for TBL, prepare for the reading assurance test more fully; (2) class/discussion participation: argue TBL options more thoroughly, pay more attention to the whole class period, speak up more or voice the opinion of the team in discussions, make more declara-tion of action and less mediation of plans; (3) afterclass teamwork: give more timely response, come to more team meetings outside the class; and (4) communication: work on communicating better because sometimes he or she is hard to understand, communicate more effectively.

When comparing the performance of the same team member between the midterm and the final, almost all students again gave positive comments regarding the single


Han and Newell 11

most valuable contribution she or he had made to TBL during the second half of the semester.

Most students reported nothing in the final evaluation after reviewing their input as to what their teammates should do or should avoid doing to perform better. The new inputs are brief and in line with the comments given in the midterm evaluation. For example, too dominant with his or her ideas, could be more serious at times or be more open-minded, try to show up to the class on time more often, read the assigned reading more thoroughly and work a little harder in group assignments outside of class, have a better understanding of group topic and assignments with better communication with the group or after class.

As for the overall evaluation of the performance of the teammates over the semester in TBL, almost all students gave highly positive conclusions. One student wrote, his or her teammate always had an individual perspective that opened my mind. Another wrote [it was] very cool working with someone from a different country and entirely different experience. We were able to apply [the knowledge about] media effects to a wider variety of aspects.

Discussion

This study applies TBL to a knowledge-based theory course for undergraduates in J&MC, an area with little exposure to the use of TBL, to boost students learning out-comes. This endeavor is worthwhile based on several characteristics as well as reasons underlying this project. First, teamwork is the chief mode of operation in the mass communication industry, particularly in advertising, public relations, and health care communication. TBL pedagogy facilitates the development of this skill, as the same TBL teams work together throughout the entire semester following common profes-sional practices in the field.45 Second, J&MC programs are to some extent dominated by hands-on skills classes and a career-based curriculum, and it is imperative for fac-ulty members to better engage students in theory classes. TBL has a proven track record of eliciting and sustaining students interest. Moreover, individually centered learning setting may become a pressing need in todays higher education. TBL can reduce class size by creating learning settings with small team or individual focus. This capability may be of relevance in the context of coping with the inflation of class size in introductory and theoretical courses in colleges today.

This study uses an undergraduate mass communication theory class to analyze the application, administration, and evaluation of TBL. Findings confirm the adoptability of TBL in J&MC courses. Specifically, the RAP reported significantly higher mean scores for teams (tRAT) than for individuals (iRAT). Group discussion and negotia-tions helped students better understand the key concepts highlighted in assigned read-ings. The higher collective scores might have partially served as an incentive for students to contribute more to the teamwork in class as well as make them more attuned to teamwork beyond the classroom.

Meanwhile, the significantly increased accuracy rate in students answers to knowl-edge-based questions from the pre- to the post-survey demonstrated the effectiveness



of TBL in a course focusing on theories and research ideas. One indicator for effective learning outcomes in this study is the numbers of communication theories that stu-dents could recall in the two surveys. While the iRAT and tRAT provided an assess-ment of the depth of knowledge, unaided recall offered an additional learning outcome measurement. As expected, students mentioned more theories in the post-survey than in the pre-survey. Likewise, their positive comments on the open-ended questions in both surveys supported the validity of the quantitative results to a certain extent. Based on their comments, students expectations about the benefits of the learning outcomes for their continual academic activities and future professional or career development at the beginning of the semester were fulfilled by the end of the semester.

Furthermore, the two peer evaluations provided consistent and highly positive assessment on the TBL experience of students in this class. The positivity applied not only to students attitudes toward their teammates but also toward TBL itself through-out the semester.

Based on these findings, the current study may serve as a baseline project to estab-lish a set of structured frameworks and specific guidelines for applying TBL to theory-oriented or knowledge-related courses in J&MC curricula. Our novel adoption of a prepost survey and a dual peer evaluation may also be of interest to colleagues with a need to assess learning effectiveness and outcome through TBL or other pedagogical innovations in general.

While the research findings are intriguing and encouraging, the limitations of this project should be noted for improvement in future research.

First, the class size, thirty-two students, was not a big class in the strictest sense. Although we employed statistical analyses, the small sample size restricted the gener-alizability of the findings to other theory-based mass communication courses or to the larger discipline of communication. Evidence reported here thus should be evaluated as tentative, calling for continued endeavors in this area. For example, the application of TBL in larger classes should be tested in the next study.

Second, the nature of the course might have exerted certain influence on the results of the pre-post survey. Students in this theory class must have junior standing or above. After a couple of years studying J&MC, most of the major students in this class might already have had basic knowledge of mass communication theories, although they could not name or recall them in the pre-survey. This situation is different from a regu-lar introductory or principle course given in the first year or as the first course for a curriculum sequence. How to single out the independent effect of TBL in a particular class on students learning outcomes is a topic worth exploration in future study. In the meantime, while the pre-post survey assessed the increase in knowledge of mass media theory as a result of participation in the TBL in this course, a more direct assess-ment is needed in future studies to compare the learning gained through the TBL pro-cess versus the learning that would have been gained from taking a theory class that did not employ TBL.

Third, in the peer evaluations, self-reported results might not have voiced all con-cerns students had about their teammates. Although the evaluations were administered as confidential, and the current measures adopted from previous studies have face


Han and Newell 13

validity, students might be reluctant to criticize a team member, especially within a small group. The measures need to be optimized, and the format variation of peer evaluations can be tested in future study. This concern is also related to the limitations of TBL itself as a pedagogical approach. In the literature, rarely seen are discussions on the weaknesses of TBL. For example, how to minimize the possibility of having free riders in a group, and how students favorability or their levels of acceptance for TBL as the primary assignments or coursework affect their levels of participation in TBL in the first place? How to minimize the possibility of having free riders in a group, and how to balance the interpersonal influence on the learning outcomes between those individual members with the dominant position and those who play a relatively more subordinate role in teamwork?

AppendixSample Readiness Assurance Test (RAT): Excerpts from the Test on Media Violence..

Questions Answer options

1. Aggressive behavior related to the observation of rewarded media violence is an example of______________.

a. inhibitory effectsb. behavioral hierarchiesc. disinhibitory effectsd. environmental incentive

2. Viewers learn novel responses through simple observation of those responses. Whether the response is inhibited or disinhibited, however, is a function of the_________.

a. behavioral hierarchyb. valence of the vicarious reinforcementc. amount of peer pressured. degree of social learning

3. A simple summary of the limited-effects findings on the effects of TV violence is that viewing of violent programming normally___________.

a. influences some types of children under certain circumstances

b. has no influence on average childrenc. has a uniform and moderately bad

influence on most childrend. has a random influence on some types of

children4. The person most associated with the

development of social cognitive/social learning theory is_________.

a. Leonard Berkowitzb. Joseph Klapperc. Wilbur Schrammd. Albert Bandura

5. The idea that the simple viewing of televised violence can reduce our aggressive drive is called__________.

a. Desensitizing effectb. Catharsis Hypothesisc. AVIDSd. Copycat

6. Big Bird on Sesame Street is given a prize because he was able to count to ten. This is an example of an effort to teach children to count by using__________.

a. delayed gratificationb. conditioned responsec. vicarious reinforcementd. sublimation



Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or pub-lication of this article: The first author received the Miller Faculty Fellowship from Iowa State University to support this research.

Notes

1. Marjolein van Offenbeek, Processes and Outcomes of Team Learning, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 10 (2001): 30317.

2. Larry K. Michaelsen, Warren E. Watson, John P. Cragin, and L. Dee Fink, Team-Based Learning: A Potential Solution to the Problems of Large Classes, Exchange: The Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal 7 (1982): 1833; Larry K. Michaelsen, Arletta B. Knight, and L. Dee Fink, Team-Based Learning: A Transformative Use of Small Groups in College Teaching (Sterling: Stylus Publishing, 2004).

3. Elizabeth A. Gomez, Dezhi Wu, and Katia Passerini, Traditional, Hybrid and Online Teamwork: Lessons from The Field, Communications of the Association for Information Systems (2009): 395412; Anne M. Hoag, Krishna P. Jayakar, and Kimberly Erickson,

Questions Answer options

7. According to the text, which of the following statements is TRUE regarding the social learning effect that was demonstrated by Bandura when he studied imitation of aggressive behavior?

a. The effect was quite generalit worked with videos made by the experimenters as well as with old Batman and Superman cartoons

b. The effect was quite specificit worked with the real Batman and Superman TV shows but not with Batman and Superman cartoons

c. The effect was quite specificit tended to work with females but not with males

d. The effect was quite generalit worked equally for males and females

8. According to the text, priming is most consistent with which of the following?

a. desensitizationb. catharsisc. facilitation of aggressive behavior after

watching media violenced. disinhibition of aggressive behavior after

watching media violence

Note. Questions and wording are partially adopted from Baran, S. J. and K. D. Dennis. 2010. Instructors Manual for Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment, and Future. 5th Ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth; and from Test Bank for G.G. Sparks. 2010. Media Effects Research: A Basic Overview. 4th Ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.

Appendix (Continued)


Han and Newell 15

The Role of Trust in Virtual and Interpersonal Environments: Implications for Team Learning and Case Method Pedagogies, Journalism & Mass Communication Educator (2003): 37083; Michaelsen, Knight, and Fink, Team-Based Learning: A Transformative Use of Small Groups in College Teaching.

4. Michaelsen, Knight, and Fink, Team-Based Learning: A Transformative Use of Small Groups in College Teaching.

5. Larry K. Michaelsen and Michael Sweet, Fundamental Principles and Practices of Team-Based Learning, in Team-Based Learning for Health Professions Education, ed. Larry K. Michaelsen, Dean X. Parmelee, Kathryn K. McMahon, and Ruth Levine (Sterling: Stylus Publishing, 2008), 931.

6. L. Dee Fink, Beyond Small Groups: Harnessing the Extraordinary Power of Learning Teams, in Team-Based Learning: A Transformative Use of Small Groups in College Teaching, ed. Larry K. Michaelsen, Arletta B. Knight, and L. Dee Fink (Sterling: Stylus Publishing, 2004), 326.

7. Larry K. Michaelsen, Getting Started with Team-Based Learning, in Team-Based Learning: A Transformative Use of Small Groups in College Teaching, ed. Larry K. Michaelsen, Arletta B. Knight, and L. Dee Fink (Sterling: Stylus Publishing, 2004), 2750.

8. Arletta B. Knight, Team-Based Learning: A Strategy for Transforming the Quality of Teaching and Learning, in Team-Based Learning: A Transformative Use of Small Groups in College Teaching, ed. Larry K. Michaelsen, Arletta B. Knight, and L. Dee Fink (Sterling: Stylus Publishing, 2004), 197207.

9. Jim Sibley and Dean X. Parmelee, Knowledge is No Longer Enough: Enhancing Professional Education with Team-Based Learning, in Team-Based Learning: Small-Group Learnings Next Big Step, ed. Larry K. Michaelsen, Michael Sweet, and Dean X. Parmelee (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008), 4153.

10. Patricia Goodson, Working with Nontraditional and Underprepared Students in Health Education, in Team-Based Learning: A Transformative Use of Small Groups in College Teaching, ed. Larry K. Michaelsen, Arletta B. Knight, and L. Dee Fink (Sterling: Stylus Publishing, 2004), 11524; John Redwanski, Incorporating Team-Based Learning in a Drug Information Course Covering Tertiary Literature, Currents in Pharmacy Teaching & Learning 4 (2012): 202206; Sibley and Parmelee, Knowledge is No Longer Enough.

11. Frank J. Dinan, An Alternative to Lecturing in the Sciences, in Team-Based Learning: A Transformative Use of Small Groups in College Teaching, ed. Larry K. Michaelsen, Arletta B. Knight, and L. Dee Fink (Sterling: Stylus Publishing, 2004), 97104; Clyde F. Herreid, Using Case Studies in ScienceAnd Still Covering the Content, in Team-Based Learning: A Transformative Use of Small Groups in College Teaching, ed. Larry K. Michaelsen, Arletta B. Knight, and L. Dee Fink (Sterling: Stylus Publishing, 2004), 10514.

12. Knight, Team-Based Learning.13. Laurie A. Lucas, Creating Group Assignments that Teach Multiple Concepts in an

Interdisciplinary Course Context, in Team-Based Learning: A Transformative Use of Small Groups in College Teaching, ed. Larry K. Michaelsen, Arletta B. Knight, and L. Dee Fink (Sterling: Stylus Publishing, 2004), 14552.

14. Knight, Team-Based Learning.15. See also Knight, Team-Based Learning.16. For example, Jooyoung Kim, Taehyun Baek, and Daehyun Kim, Quality of Work and Team

Spirit as Drivers of Student Peer Evaluation on Advertising Group Project Performance, Journal of Advertising Education 15 (2011): 1424.



17. For example, Hoag, Jayakar, and Erickson, The Role of Trust in Virtual and Interpersonal Environments; Debbie Treise and Elaine Wagner, Cooperation and Accommodation Strategies for Learning-Disabled Students in Team-Based Courses, Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 57 (2002): 2334.

18. Fink, Beyond Small Groups, 9.19. Albert Bandura, Social Learning Theory (New York: General Learning Press, 1977); Ann

L. Brown and Annemarie S. Palincsar, Guided, Cooperative Learning and Individual Knowledge Acquisition, in Knowing, Learning and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser, ed. Lauren B. Resnick (Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1989), 393451; Dorothy E. Leidner and Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa, The Use of Information Technology to Enhance Management School Education: A Theoretical View, MIS Quarterly 19 (1995): 265291.

20. Elizabeth A. Gomez, Dezhi Wu, and Katia Passerini, Computer-Supported Team-Based Learning: The Impact of Motivation, Enjoyment and Team Contributions on Learning Outcomes, Computers & Education 55 (2010): 37890.

21. Jerome Bruner, The Culture of Education (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996); Jean Piaget, The Science of Education and the Psychology of the Child (New York: Grossman, 1970).

22. Frances Stage, Patricia Muller, Jillian Kinzie, and Ada Simmons, Creating Learning Centered Classrooms. What Does Learning Theory Have to Say? (Washington, DC: George Washington University, 1998); Graduate School of Education and Human Development, ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education. http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/files/colleg-elearn.html1998 (accessed March 1, 2013)

23. Michael Sweet and Laura M. Pelton-Sweet, The Social Foundation of Team-based Learning: Students Accountable to Students, in Team-Based Learning: Small-Group Learnings Next Big Step, ed. Larry K. Michaelsen, Michael Sweet, and Dean X. Parmelee (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008), 2940.

24. See also, Keonya C. Booker, The Role of Instructors and Peers in Establishing Classroom Community, Journal of Instructional Psychology 35 (2008): 1216; Tierra M. Freeman, Lynley H. Anderman, and Jane M. Jensen, Sense of Belonging in College Freshmen at the Classroom and Campus Levels, Journal of Experimental Education 75 (2007): 20320; Jessica J. Summers, S. Natasha Beretvas, Marilla D. Svinicki, and Joanna S. Gorin, Evaluating Collaborative Learning and Community, Journal of Experimental Education 73 (2005): 16588.

25. Bandura, Social Learning Theory.26. See also, Gomez, Wu, and Passerini, Computer-Supported Team-Based Learning; Stage

et al., Creating Learning Centered Classrooms.27. Fink, Beyond Small Groups.28. Maryam Alavi and Donna Dufner, Technology-Mediated Collaborative Learning: A

Research Perspective, in Learning Together Online: Research on Asynchronous Learning Networks, ed. Starr R. Hiltz and Ricki Goldman (Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2005), 191214.

29. Brown and Palincsar, Guided, Cooperative Learning and Individual Knowledge Acquisition.

30. For example, David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson, What Makes Cooperative Learning Work, in Cooperative Learning, ed. David Kluge, Steve McGuire, and David Johnson (Tokyo: Japan Association for Language Teaching, 1999), 2336; David W. Johnson and


Han and Newell 17

Roger T. Johnson, An Educational Psychology Success Story: Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning, Educational Researcher 38 (2009): 36579; see Sweet and Pelton-Sweet, The Social Foundation of Team-Based Learning.

31. Larry K. Michaelsen and Michael Sweet, The Essential Elements of Team-based Learning, in Team-Based Learning: Small-Group Learnings Next Big Step, ed. Larry K. Michaelsen, Michael Sweet, and Dean X. Parmelee (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008), 727.

32. Fink, Beyond Small Groups, 8.33. Fink, Beyond Small Groups, 4.34. Johnson and Johnson, What Makes Cooperative Learning Work.35. Sweet and Pelton-Sweet, The Social Foundation of Team-Based Learning, 30.36. Michaelsen et al., Team-Based Learning: A Potential Solution to the Problems of Large

Classes. Exchange.37. David Kluge, Steve McGuire, and David Johnson, eds., Cooperative Learning (Tokyo:

Japan Association for Language Teaching, 1999).38. Hoag, Jayakar, and Erickson, The Role of Trust, 37071.39. Gomez, Wu, and Passerini, Computer-Supported Team-Based Learning.40. Michaelsen and Sweet, The Essential Elements of Team-Based Learning, 7.41. Michaelsen and Sweet, The Essential Elements of Team-Based Learning; Team-Based

Learning. http://www.teambasedlearning.org/ (accessed March 1, 2012).42. Larry K. Michaelsen, Michael Sweet, and Dean X. Parmelee, eds., Team-Based Learning:

Small-Group Learnings Next Big Step (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008).43. Michaelsen et al., Team-Based Learning: A Potential Solution to the Problems of Large

Classes. Exchange.44. Koles Method, Team-Based Learning Peer Feedback (2010), http://www.teambasedlearn-

ing.org/Default.aspx?pageId=1032389 (accessed January 11, 2012).45. Gomez, Wu, and Passerini, Computer-Supported Team-Based Learning.

Author Biographies

Gang (Kevin) Han, PhD, teaches public relations and mass communication theory and research methods at both undergraduate and graduate levels. His research interests include news frame and framing effects, health risk, public relations, social influence through social media and social networking.

Jay Newell, PhD, teaches advertising, communication campaigns, media planning, and media management. His research interests center on the effects of emerging media on traditional media, including changes in attention to traditional media, the development of new media use habits, the response of advertisers to the new media climate, and the marketing of media to individuals.


journalism & mass communication educator-2014-han-1077695813517887

Documents

mass communication jmc

knowledgebased courses

jmc field

keywordsteambased learning

jay newellteambased

theoryoriented journalism

teambased learning tbl

research courses