FACET Annual Retreat
Team Based Critical Analysis Workshop
May 18, 2013
Linda S. Ficht, J.D., MBA
Associate Professor of Business Law
School of Business
Indiana University Kokomo
Team Based learning

Developed by Larry Michaelsen in the late
70’s while at the University of Oklahoma

The instructional use of small groups
allow students to work together to
maximize their learning
Team Based Learning

Research has shown:
◦ Higher student achievement
◦ Greater use of higher level reasoning and
critical thinking
◦ More positive attitudes and satisfaction
◦ Better interpersonal skills
Team Based Learning

Pros
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
Highly organized
Students become active participant in learning
Teaches critical thinking skills
Engagement is high
Process is easy to understand and implement
Encourages learning from each other
Team Based Learning

Cons
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
Significant amount of testing and re-testing
Multiple choice examinations
Not enough writing
Missing a distinct model for critical thinking
Students do no like group work. Fairness
issues often arise due to the freeloader effect.
Team Based Critical Analysis
Combination of a modified Team Based
Learning with IRAC
 IRAC is a teaching pedagogy from law
school:
Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion

Team Based Critical Analysis
Lecture one class period on the key
concepts that students find difficult to
understand (75 min)
 Next class period is devoted to group
work (75 min). It is imperative that the
professor walk around the room during
this time listening in on the group
discussion.

Case Study
Law enforcement officers arrived at a Minnesota residence
in order to execute arrest warrants for Andrew
Hyatt. During the officers‘ attempt to make the arrest,
Hyatt yelled something such as "Go ahead, just shoot
me, shoot me," and struck one of the officers. Another
officer then called for assistance from City of Anoka,
Minnesota, police officer Mark Yates, who was elsewhere
in the residence with his leashed police dog,
Chips. Yates entered the room where Hyatt was and saw
the injured officer's bloodied face, and observed
Hyatt standing behind his wife (Lena Hyatt). One of
the officers acquired the impression that Lena may
have been serving as a shield for her husband. When
Andrew again yelled "Shoot me, shoot me" and ran
toward the back of the room. Yates released Chips
from the leash. Instead of pursuing Andrew, Chips
apprehended Lena, taking her to the ground and
performing a "bite and hold" on her leg and arm.
Yates then pursued Andrew who had fled through a
window. When Yates later re-entered the room, he released
Chips from Lena and instructed another officer
to arrest her on suspicion of obstruction of legal
process. Lena was taken by ambulance to a hospital
and treated for lacerations on her elbow and knee. She
later sued the City of Anoka, seeking compensation
for medical expenses and pain and suffering. Her
complaint alleged liability on the basis of Minnesota's
dog bite statute, which read as follows:
"lf a dog, without provocation, attacks or injures any
person who is acting peaceably in any place where the
person may lawfully be, the owner of the dog is liable
in damages to the person so attacked or injured to the
extent of the injury sustained. The term "owner"
includes any person harboring or keeping a dog.
In defense, the city argued that the dog bite statute
Does not apply to police dogs and municipalities that
own them.
Case Study #1 IRAC
I.
Whether the city is liable for the actions of the police dog.
R. The Plain Meaning Rule states that courts must interpret a statute with its actual language,
according to the usual meaning of its words, without concerning themselves with anything else.
Minnesota's dog bite statute states:
"If a dog, without provocation, attacks or injures any person who is acting peaceably in
any place where the person may lawfully be, the owner of the dog is liable in damages to
the person so attacked or injured to the full amount of the injury sustained. The term
"owner" includes any person harboring or keeping a dog but the owner shall be primarily
liable. The term “dog" includes both male and female of the canine species.“
A. Andrew Hyatt was standing behind his wife, Lena Hyatt, when the police officer, Mark
Yates, released the police dog. The officer acquired the impression that Andrew Hyatt was using
Lena Hyatt as a shield; however, she was peaceably standing, unarmed in her home, not acting as
a shield. Lena Hyatt was then attacked by the police dog. The statute states that the owner of the
dog is liable in damages to the person attacked or injured when unprovoked. According to the Plain Meaning Rule, the owner is
to be interpreted as the person harboring or keeping the dog, which would have been the police officer, Mark Yates. There is
no distinction in the statute distinguishing between dogs that are pets and police dogs. Also, municipalities are not mentioned
in the statute or specifically excluded, thus the statute cannot be interpreted as distinguishing between municipalities and
private owners. Here Lena was standing in her home, unarmed and not making any provoking moves. The fact her husband
moved behind her does not mean she is now provoking the police. Rather one could argue her safety is being implicated by the
actions of her husband, not her own actions. The police have a duty to subdue a suspect without putting innocent people at
risk. This woman was not yelling at the police or making threats. The police should not have released the dog because the
handler knew it was highly likely the dog would attack Lena not Andrew. The law clearly states that if a dog, without
provocation, attacks someone in a place they are lawfully located, the owner of the dog will be liable for the injury. Given the
Plain Meaning Rule, the municipality is the owner of the police dog that attacked Lena Hyatt while she was peaceably standing
in her home, the municipality is liable in damages.
C. The city is liable for the actions of the police dog.
Grading Rubric






10 possible points
9-10 points – Correctly identifies the Issue and Rule. Correctly applies
the significant Facts from the problem to the Rule. Explains why these
Facts matter in regards to the Rule.
Student answer: Has cited the Plain Meaning Rule. Has explained that the
City owns the dog. Has explained that the woman was not provoking the
police and was in her home lawfully. Has explained that the woman is not
responsible for the actions of her husband. Has explained that the City
was not exempt from the law.
7-8 Points – Correctly identifies the Issue and Rule but does not
completely explain how the facts fit with the Rule. Cites most of the
significant Facts listed above and draws a fairly clear linkage between those
Facts to the Rule.
5-6 Points – Correctly identifies the Issue or Rule but not both. Cites to
some of the Facts but misses several key points. Student writes in terms
of how they “feel” instead of citing law and facts to justify opinion.
4 or less Points – No clear indication of any Rules. Little to no Facts
cited. Student is stating how they “feel” instead of citing the law and facts.
Texting While Driving Law

IC 9-21-8-59
Use of telecommunications device while operating a
moving motor vehicle
Sec. 59. (a) A person may not use a telecommunications
device to:
(1) type a text message or an electronic mail message;
(2) transmit a text message or an electronic mail message; or
(3) read a text message or an electronic mail message;
while operating a moving motor vehicle unless the device is
used in conjunction with hands free or voice operated
technology, or unless the device is used to call 911 to report
a bona fide emergency.
(b) A police officer may not confiscate a telecommunications
device for the purpose of determining compliance with this
section or confiscate a telecommunications device and retain
it as evidence pending trial for a violation of this section.
As added by P.L.185-2011, SEC.4.
Case Study #2
Sally was driving her 2007 Ford Escort with her friends Jim and Lisa. The trio decided it
would be a good idea to head to the movies and wanted to invite other friends to
meet them there. While Sally was driving, she texted three of her friends and asked
them to meet up at the movie theater. She engaged in several text messages with the
three people giving details about who was going and what movie they were going to
see. Then Sally posted on Facebook that they were all going to the movies. Jim and
Lisa also texted friends about going to the movies while Sally was driving. In fact the
three of them had several text and Facebook discussions while Sally was driving about
going to the movies. Due to all this distraction, Sally was speeding and did not realize
it.
However Officer Randall did realize it and pulled Sally over for speeding. After the
officer approached Sally’s vehicle he saw her cell phone sitting in her lap and asked her
if she had been texting while driving. Sally said, no she was not texting while driving.
Officer Randall asked her to give him the phone so he could check to see if she was
lying. Sally hesitated and said she would prefer not to give him the phone. At this point
Officer Randall ordered all the teens out of the car and lined them up on the side of
the road. Then in an intimidating voice told them that if they had nothing to hide they
would let him see their phones. The teens then complied with his request. The officer
took a picture of the teens text message screens and gave the phones back to the
teens. Sally was given a ticket for speeding and texting while driving. The passengers
were given written warnings not to text while driving. The officer also chastised them
for “Facebooking” while driving.
Discuss
Qualitative Changes

Most significant change is found in the
level of engagement
◦ Energy level in class
◦ Students using the method in other classes
and on the job
◦ Contact with students beyond the class
◦ Student going beyond the material
◦ Students teaching others the method
◦ Students using the method in professional
lives to assist with promotions
Additional Research

In 2012 conducted an IRB approved study
◦ Two sections of L201 taught in the TBCA
method
◦ Two sections of L201 taught without TBCA
◦ This summer we will compare the essay
exams of both classes to assess the critical
thinking skills of the students
◦ Preliminary results show slight improvement
in scores with TBCA. Satisfaction Scores are
significantly higher with TBCA overall.
Future Research

Conduct a survey of former students
◦ Ask if they still use TBCA and in what ways
◦ Give them a short exam to test retention of
learning from their L201 class

Address issues of student satisfaction
with lower performing students