MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Team-based Learning in the Humanities Classroom: “Women’s Environmental Writing” as a Case Study

2015· article· en· W2189853013 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Roxanne Harde

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicProblem and Project Based Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTeam-based learningPsychologyEnvironmental educationPedagogySustainabilityAccountabilityKnightSociologyMathematics educationMedical educationEcologyMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay presents the adaptation of Team-Based Learning (TBL) for a course that uses ecofeminist approaches to environmental literature. Developed originally for use in professional programs, TBL’s cornerstones are permanent learning teams, preparation, application, and timely assessment (Michaelsen, Knight, & Fink, 2002). I wanted my students to examine literature about nature and sustainability in a way that would inform their ecological practice in the future. In this essay, I discuss the practice of using TBL in the environmental literature classroom, a strategy that has produced noticeable positive engagement from my students, engendering intellectual engagement with literature, the environment, and ecofeminist theory and criticism. I outline how TBL has proved an effective teaching strategy in the environmental literature classroom, showing the model’s value in a Humanities setting. I begin by detailing the goals of a course on women’s environmental literature and ecofeminist theory. Second, I explain how I applied TBL strategies of student and teacher accountability to the course by using Readiness Assessment Tests (RATs) and assigning permanent teams of five to eight students for regular discussion and peer evaluation. Third, I discuss ways in which a TBL approach to teaching women’s environmental literature encourages collaborative learning among students, and reflects the communal attitude that should be a part of ecofeminist learning and application. I also present students’ assessments of their experiences in the TBL classroom, along with my own evaluation, concluding that although the TBL method is initially labour intensive for both students and teachers, it is an ideal teaching method as it encourages accountability, regular feedback, and practical application of course material. Cet article présente l’adaptation de l’apprentissage fondé sur l’esprit d’équipe (AFEÉ) pour un cours qui utilise des approches éco-féministes à la documentation environnementale. L’AFEÉ a été initialement développé pour être utilisé dans les programmes professionnels et ses principes fondamentaux sont des équipes d’apprentissage permanentes, la préparation, l’application et l’évaluation ponctuelle (Michaelsen, Knight & Fink, 2002). Je souhaitais que mes étudiants examinent la documentation publiée sur la nature et la durabilité d’une manière qui puisse influencer à l’avenir leurs pratiques écologiques. Dans cet article, je discute la pratique qui consiste à utiliser l’AFEÉ dans une salle de classe où l’on examine la documentation environnementale, une stratégie qui a eu pour résultat un engagement positif notoire parmi mes étudiants et a engendré un engagement intellectuel avec la documentation publiée, l’environnement et la théorie de l’éco-féminisme et de la critique. Je souligne comment l’AFEÉ s’est avéré être une stratégie d’enseignement efficace dans la salle de classe de documentation environnementale et je montre la valeur du modèle dans un cadre d’enseignement des humanités. Je commence par détailler les objectifs du cours sur la documentation environnementale féministe et sur la théorie de l’éco-féminisme. Ensuite, j’explique comment j’ai appliqué au cours les stratégies d’AFEÉ de responsabilité des étudiants et des professeurs en utilisant des tests d’évaluation de la préparation (Readiness Assessment Tests - RAT) et en divisant les étudiants en équipes permanentes de cinq à huit étudiants pour les discussions régulières et l’évaluation par les pairs. Puis je discute des manières dont l’approche de l’AFEÉ pour l’enseignement de la documentation environnementale féministe encourage l’apprentissage collaboratif parmi les étudiants et reflète l’attitude communale qui devrait faire partie de l’apprentissage et de l’application de l’éco-féminisme. Je présente également des évaluations où les étudiants expliquent leur expérience dans la salle de classe où l’on a pratiqué l’AFEÉ, ainsi que ma propre évaluation, et en conclusion, je montre que la méthode d’AFEÉ exige beaucoup de travail au début à la fois pour les étudiants et pour les enseignants, mais qu’il s’agit d’une méthode d’enseignement idéale car elle encourage la responsabilité, la rétroaction régulière et l’application pratique de la matière du cours.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0270.010
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0040.009
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and LearningSame topicProblem and Project Based LearningFrench-language works237,207