This was a challenging review for me as I am left with many questions for the author. We are all faced with teaching our students 21^st century skills that extend beyond discipline theoretical knowledge, skills and attitudes and thus exploring novel ways to get students to value teamwork, become more creative, more critically aware, become and remain inquisitive etc. Blended learning, team-based and problem-based learning etc. are well described methods that may assist in facilitating the development of these critical skills.

I also note the challenge the author faced with introducing change and applaud her talking the plunge in implementing a hybrid TBL strategy in her own teaching, despite faculty resistance.

I have however some concerns with how this article has been written, leaving me with many questions for the author:

Firstly the introduction lacks focus and is confusing. There is too much reporting on albeit relevant pedagogy, but how exactly TBL embeds all these pedagogies remains unclear. What is TBL, how it compares with other similar methods such as PBL for e.g. should be discussed to motivate why the author selected this in her teaching. The author refers to 21^st century learning as well as learning 21^st century skills – these are two very distinct concepts. Did she select a hybrid mode to ‘keep up with how the new generations want to learn’ or is the focus on developing critical skills?

There is no description of concepts e.g. readiness assurance tests – I am assuming this is a quiz that aims to determine readiness to continue with the next phase? It is also unclear what and or how the team readiness assurance  test was conducted – and what the purpose thereof was. What did the 10 min lecture consist of – was it in response to the team discussion? And what exactly did they discuss. Was the case presented as part of the pre-activity?

Students completed team discussions, compiled a presentation to the class, completed a mini-test and a survey – all within 60min? Followed by students developing an artifact that demonstrate their understanding of the core component/concepts. I am left wondering whether content examples will not make it easier to follow this process. I am also left wondering what the outcome of this was on their understanding and or if more time was spent on understanding the technologies to create the artifacts. How many choose which method?

I am also not familiar with the method of awarding best work – kindly explain this. In your opinion did awarding the best students impact the process e.g. improve engagement.

Re lessons learnt – I agree that the biggest challenge is faculty development in T&L methodologies – there are better strategies for promoting 21^st century skills while learning discipline specific content. There were almost a third of students though that did not like this method – what will you do differently to ensure all students benefit from the experience or embrace it more moving forward?

Recommendations for a revised draft:

1. Be specific in what your reasons for and aims were for introducing this model and clear on what you surveyed amongst the students concerning this approach.
2. Explain your hybrid version better – how does it differ from typical TBL and why not PBL for example.
3. Report more specific or clearly on the student survey outcomes/responses.
4. Reconsider some of the conclusions, especially no 3 – it is unclear how web-based materials leads to lifelong learning.

[jetpack-related-posts]