Michaelsen, L. K., Davidson, N., & Major, C. H. (2014).

Team-based learning practices and principles in com-

parison with cooperative learning and problem-based
learning. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25(3&4),
57-84.

Team-Based Learning Practices and Principles

in Comparison With Cooperative Learning
and Problem-Based Learning

Larry K. Michaelsen
University of Central Missouri
Neil Davidson
University of Maryland
(Emeritus)
Claire Howell Major
University of Alabama

The authors address three questions: (1) What are the founda-
tional practices of team-based learning (TBL)? (2) What are
the fundamental principles underlying TBL’s foundational
practices? and (3) In what ways are TBL’s foundational prac-
tices similar to and/or different from the practices employed by
problem-based learning (PBL) and cooperative learning (CL)?
Most of the TBL vs. CL and PBL comparisons are organized in
relation to the size of and strategies for forming groups/teams,
the strategies for ensuring that students are familiar with the
course content, the nature of the group/team assignments, the
role of peer assessment, and the role of the instructor.

Introduction
Faculty members today are confronted with multiple, often conflicting,
demands from various constituents. One of the most pervasive is an in-
creased emphasis on securing external funding. Due to the reduction of
funding from government sources, many universities are placing serious
57
58 Journal on Excellence in College Teaching

pressure on faculty to secure grant funds to ensure financial sustainabil-

ity. Subsequently, many of these same universities are asking faculty to
teach larger classes in order to keep costs down while simultaneously
pushing for more effective teaching to ensure student course satisfaction
and increased enrollment.
Further straining faculty workloads, today’s students are entering colle-
giate classes with a very different set of expectations and study habits than
those of previous generations. Employers of our graduates often complain
about what their new employees don’t know and can’t do, urging us to
teach them a wider range of skills, capabilities, and attitudes, for example,
a more positive attitude toward diversity and teamwork (David, David,
& David, 2011; Hart Research Associates, 2008; Polk-Lepson Research
Group, 2013). In addition to the increased instructional needs, the size
and range of course textbooks continue to expand annually as a result of
emerging research. This also places additional demands on the content
faculty are responsible for covering.
As a result of these compounding challenges, the question that has
emerged is this: “How can faculty accommodate all of these different
demands and pressures?” This article will describe why and how team-
based learning (TBL) has begun to emerge as a practical and effective
approach for addressing most if not all of these difficult and potentially
conflicting challenges. In addition, TBL transforms our classrooms into a
more enjoyable experience for teachers and students alike (see Michaelsen,
Knight, and Fink, 2004; Michaelsen, Parmelee, McMahon, and Levine,
2007; Michaelsen, Sweet, and Parmelee, 2008; Sweet and Michaelsen, 2012;
Sibley and Ostafichuk, 2013).
There are two keys to TBL’s effectiveness: (1) TBL shifts the focus
of instruction away from the teacher as dispenser of information and
instead places the focus on students actively engaging in activities that
require them to use the concepts to solve problems, and (2) every aspect
of a TBL course is specifically designed to foster the development of
self-managed learning teams. Thus, in TBL classes, students are actively
engaged with each other as they attempt to apply course concepts to solve
authentic problems. Further, to the extent that its practices result in the
development of effective, self-managed learning teams, TBL is far more
powerful practical for fostering both engagement and learning than is
possible with either individual interaction between the instructor and his
or her students or even other forms of in-class, small-group work. These
outcomes are possible only because, once developed, the teams provide
a powerful intellectual and social foundation for dealing with genuinely
challenging problems (McInerney & Fink, 2003). As a result, TBL courses
 TBL Compared With CL and PBL 59

produce both deep learning and a wide variety of other positive outcomes,
which include enabling students to develop a deep understanding of the
concepts, a sense of responsibility to and for their teammates, a genuine
appreciation of the power of team interaction, ethical decision making,
and even improved work performance (MacCormack & Garvan, 2014).
(See Haidet, Kubitz, and McCormack, 2014, in this issue for a current
summary and analysis of the research on TBL to date.)
This article will first outline how TBL is able to produce such a wide
range of positive outcomes by describing the foundational practices of
TBL and comparing them with practices employed by two other widely
used approaches that rely on small group work—problem-based learning
(PBL) and cooperative learning (CL). Then the issue of why TBL works will
be addressed by discussing the key principles involved in TBL and then
contrasting these principles with traditional (lecture-based) educational
practice. The article’s final section will summarize the key similarities and
differences between TBL and CL and PBL.

Foundational Practices of Team-Based Learning

Four foundational practices are essential for implementing TBL: (1)
strategically forming permanent teams; (2) ensuring student familiarity
with course content by utilizing a Readiness Assurance Process; (3) de-
veloping students’ critical-thinking skills by using carefully-designed,
in-class activities and assignments; and (4) creating and administering a
peer assessment and feedback system. Each of these practices has been
described in detail elsewhere (Michaelsen et al., 2004; Michaelsen et al.,
2007; Michaelsen et al., 2008; Sweet & Michaelsen, 2012), but they are
briefly described below.

Strategically Forming Permanent Teams

To be maximally effective, learning groups in any setting require two
very different types of assets that are directly affected by the way teams
are formed and managed. First, groups must have sufficient intellectual
resources to complete their assigned tasks. Second, the members must
interact with each other in productive ways.
In TBL, the team formation and management processes are particularly
critical for two reasons. One reason is that, because the primary objective
is developing students higher-level thinking and problem-solving skills,
students will be faced with a number of highly challenging assignments.
Thus, the groups need to be fairly large (5-7 members), and intellectual
60 Journal on Excellence in College Teaching

assets and liabilities in the class should be evenly allocated across groups
in a class. The other reason is that, in TBL, groups must develop into ef-
fective self-managed teams (Fink, 2003). As a result, the team formation
and management process in TBL has two important dimensions. First,
the groups must be formed in a way that will minimize potential disrup-
tions from cohesive subgroups (for example, pre-existing friendships).
Options for forming TBL groups can be found in a variety of sources,
including Michaelsen et al., 2004; Michaelsen et al., 2007; Michaelsen et
al., 2008; Sweet & Michaelsen, 2012; and the TBL Collaborative website
(www.teambasedlearning.org). Second, the membership of the groups
must remain stable over a long enough period for the team-development
process to come to fruition (Michaelsen, Watson, & Sharp, 1991; Watson,
Kumar, & Michaelsen, 1993).
One area in which TBL, cooperative learning, and problem-based learn-
ing are in agreement is that the groups should be purposefully formed by
the instructor, and, with a few exceptions in specific CL applications, the
groups should contain members with diverse points of view. However,
TBL differs from both CL and PBL with respect to how to maximize the
likelihood that learning groups will have both the intellectual resources
and effective social interactions they need to succeed. TBL utilizes larger
groups (5-7 members) because of the increased risk that teams of less than
5 members will be resource-deficient when students are faced with the
wide variety of challenging decision-based tasks that are characteristic of
TBL courses (see Levine et al., 2014; Michaelsen et al., 2004; Michaelsen
et al., 2007; Michaelsen et al., 2008; Sweet and Michaelsen, 2012). In CL,
the groups are smaller (2-4 members) for two reasons. One is that, in the
short run, smaller groups are both more efficient and more effective than
larger groups in dealing with many types of tasks. The other reason is the
assumption that appropriately designing the tasks and guiding students’
interactions will compensate for any loss of input that might come from
having smaller groups. Most CL tasks are structured to be completed
within one class period, and these tasks can be handled by groups with
2-4 members. Furthermore , while TBL always uses permanent groups,
in CL the duration of the groups is often determined by the tasks they
will be asked to complete. For example, a typical think-pair-share activity
would use short-term groups during a single class period. On the other
hand, although none of the CL models requires permanent groups, some
do use longer-term groups of several weeks’ duration.
TBL, CL, and PBL have very different strategies for promoting effec-
tive interaction. TBL relies on a team-development process that naturally
occurs as a result of members receiving immediate and ongoing feedback
 TBL Compared With CL and PBL 61

on their performance. Group work designed in cooperative learning

typically relies on a combination of orchestrating positive interaction by
assigning member roles (for example, recorder, summarizer), structuring
interactions (for example, think-pair-share), and/or teaching group inter-
action skills through group processing discussions following each group
activity (see Millis and Cottell, 1998; also see the articles by Kagan and by
Johnson et al., 2014, in this issue). Like TBL, PBL has larger (5-8+ member)
permanent teams, but it relies on a trained facilitator who, in most cases,
is also content knowledgeable, to intervene when needed to keep groups
on track and moving forward in a productive way (Major & Eck, 2000).

Ensuring Concept Familiarity With a Readiness Assurance Process

The primary learning objective in TBL is to go beyond simply dispens-
ing content and focus on ensuring that students have the opportunity to
practice using course concepts to solve problems. Simply put, the primary focus
of a TBL classroom is student learning, not faculty teaching. Although
some time is spent on ensuring that students master the course content,
the vast majority of class time is used for team assignments that focus
on using course content to solve the kinds of problems that students are
likely to face when they have to apply course material in real life. Figure 1
(adapted from Parmelee, Michaelsen, & Hudes, 2013) depicts the sequence
of activities involved in implementing each unit of a TBL course.
A typical TBL course is organized into 5-7 major units, each of which be-
gins with a pre-class individual assignment (for example, readings, Power
Points, videos) that is designed to familiarize students with the key con-
cepts from that unit. The first in-class activity for each unit is a Readiness
Assurance Process (RAP), which consists of a short individual Readiness
Assurance Test (iRAT) over the key ideas from the pre-class assignment.
Following completion of the iRAT, students re-take the same Readiness
Assurance Test as a team (tRAT) by coming to consensus on their answers.
Ideally, they use the IF-AT “scratch-off” answer sheets (see Figure 2) that
enable students to receive both real-time feedback on each of their deci-
sions and partial credit for partial knowledge (see Michaelsen et al., 2008).
After reviewing their tRAT scores, if the team feels they can make valid ar-
guments for an answer on which they failed to receive full credit, they then
have the opportunity to write evidence-based appeals. The final step in the
RAP is an instructor clarification review (usually very short and always
very specific) through which the instructor corrects any misperceptions of
the material that may still remain, as indicated by team test performance
and the appeals. The rest of the learning unit is spent with students
 Figure 1
62

TBL Implementation Steps

 

Recurring steps
(repeat steps for
each TBL module)

Phase Three
5) tAPP– Team
Application
Application
1.5-2 hrs.

4) Instructor
Clarification & If tAPP
Review graded
Phase Two
3) tRAT– Team
Readiness
Readiness Assurance
Assurance 30-
Test
Journal on Excellence in College Teaching

60 min.
2) iRAT– Individaul
Readiness Assurance
Test

Phase One
1) Advanced
Assignement
 TBL Compared With CL and PBL 63

Figure 2
Immediate Feedback Assessment Technique (IF AT)
 

putting course content to use by working on team applications (tAPPs).

The TBL practice of ensuring content coverage through the RAP is very
different than in either CL or PBL. CL differs from either TBL or PBL in
that, instead of being a specified step in the instructional sequence, concept
coverage in CL can occur in a variety of ways. These could include lectures,
individual study, and/or peer teaching through the use of strategies such
as jigsaw (Aronson & Patnoe, 2011; Davidson & Worsham, 1992). Although
the RAP phase of TBL and the learning activities in PBL have a similar
goal—that is, to ensure students gain a comprehensive understanding
of a set of problem-related concepts—the sequence of their instruction-
al activities is exactly the opposite. With PBL, the problem comes first,
and students’ initial task is to decide what content they need to master
through individual research and team discussions (Major & Eck, 2000).
By contrast, TBL requires students first to study a set of concepts on their
own to prepare for the RAP, during which they discuss and clarify and, if
64 Journal on Excellence in College Teaching

needed, receive corrective instruction on the course concepts. Once a con-

tent understanding base is in place, students in TBL courses then become
immersed in complex problems through which they must work together
and, in the process, deepen their understanding of the concepts learned.

Using Well-Designed In-Class

Team Application Assignments
The final stage in the TBL instructional activity sequence for each
unit of instruction is both the most important and the most challenging
aspect of implementing TBL (see Figure 1). It involves having groups use
the concepts to solve some sort of a problem so that students have the
opportunity to enrich their understanding of the concepts as they try to
apply them. Two important elements in the application assignments are
that they must (1) foster accountability and (2) promote give-and-take
discussion first within and then between teams.
The key to creating and implementing effective team assignments is
following what TBL users fondly refer to as the “4 S’s” (see Figure 3): (1)
Assignments should always be designed around a problem that is Sig-
nificant to students, (2) all of the students in the class should be working
on the Same problem, (3) students should be required to make a Specific
choice, and (4) groups should Simultaneously report their choices (see
also Ostafichuk, 2013; Roberson and Franchini, in this issue). Further, these
prescriptions apply to all three stages in which students interface with
course concepts—individual work prior to group discussions, discussions
within groups, and whole-class discussion between groups. The “4 S’s”
are explained in greater detail next.

Significant (to Students) Problem

Effective TBL assignments must capture students’ interest (see Par-
melee et al., 2013). Unless assignments are built around what they see
as a relevant issue, most students will view what they are being asked
to do as “busy work” (also referred to as “exercising” by Fink, 2003),
and they will likely put forth the minimum effort required to get a
satisfactory grade. The key to identifying what will be significant to
students is using “backwards design” (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998). This
philosophy implies that the actions involved in learning by doing have
a greater impact than learning simply by knowing. For example, if in-
structors identify what they really want students to be able to do and
give them the chance to try, it is very likely that instructors’ enthusiasm
 TBL Compared With CL and PBL 65

Figure 3
Effective Group Assignments
Figure  3
 
Effective  Group  Assignments
Individual   Within   Between   Impact  on  
Work
X
Teams
X
Teams
= Learning

Maximum  learning  occurs  when  assignments  at  each  

stage  are  characterized  by  ”4  S’s":
! Significant  Problem–Problem  involves  issues  that  are  
significant  to  students.
! Same  Problem–Individuals/groups  are  working  on  the  
same  problem,  case  or  question.
! Specific  Choice–Individuals/groups  are  required  to  use  
course  concepts  to  make  a  specific  choice.
! Simultaneous  Report–Individuals/groups  report  their  
choices  simultaneously.  

will carry over to students in a way that rarely happens when teaching is
organized around what instructors think students should know.

Same Problem
Group assignments are effective only to the extent that they promote
discussion and that, when groups work on different problems, students
have to try to build inter-team discussions even though they are faced
with a comparison of “apples and oranges.” By contrast, having all of
the groups work on the same problem energizes both the within- and
between-team discussions. When all of the groups have a common frame
of reference, within-groups discussions tend to be more focused and in-
tense because students realize they will be accountable for quality of their
thinking. This, in turn, provides an intellectual and emotional foundation
for a more conceptually rich and energetic exchange in subsequent dis-
cussions between groups.

Specific Choice
In general, the best activity to challenge students to engage in higher
levels of cognitive complexity is to require them to make a specific choice
(Michaelsen et al., 2008; Roberson & Reimers, 2012). In summarizing and
66 Journal on Excellence in College Teaching

synthesizing a wide variety of learning, brain science, and education lit-

erature, Roberson and Franchini (in this issue) conclude that
The most clarifying action a student can take is to make a decision. Re-
quiring collective decision-making provides an opportunity for
students to practice the kind of thinking we want to promote in
our courses and disciplines and is the starting point for effective
overall TBL course design. A well-constructed decision-based
task integrates components of higher-order thinking: analysis
of the particular situation to determine competing priorities
and values; various lines of reasoning; use of relevant concepts,
principles, laws, or other abstractions at play in the situation;
reflective, critical thinking (Are we sure of these facts? Are we sure
we understand?); and, ultimately, a judgment that is expressed
in a visible, concrete action/outcome that can be evaluated.
(pp. 278-279)

Team tasks need to point students consistently toward making decisions,

not simply rehashing information.
Examples of application activities in which students are working with
the same problem include the following:
• What is the ideal site for a new dry cleaning business
in Norman, Oklahoma, and what is the single most
compelling reason for your decision? (Michaelsen et.
al., 2004, p. 66).
• What drug would you recommend to reduce the blood
pressure of a patient who is/has (give list of potentially
complicating factors)? Why? (Michaelsen, Parmelee,
McMahon, & Levine, 2007, p. 49).
• Which line on this tax form would pose greatest financial
risk due to an IRS audit? (Michaelsen & Sweet, 2009, p.
21).
• Given a set of real data, which of the following adver-
tising claims is least (or most) supportable? (Michaelsen
& Sweet, 2009, p. 21).
• Given four short paragraphs, which is the best (or worst)
example of an enthymeme? Why? (Michaelsen & Sweet,
2009, p. 21).
 TBL Compared With CL and PBL 67

Simultaneous Reports
Once groups have completed their deliberations on questions like those
listed above, it is critical to have them simultaneously reveal their answer
choices for two reasons. One reason is that simultaneous reporting pro-
vides everyone with immediate feedback on how their choices compare to
those from other teams and, most important, highlights differences among
the set of choices. The second reason for simultaneous report is that the
team choice is clearly visible to the rest of the class, requiring teams to be
accountable for, explain, and defend their position. (For a more detailed
discussion of options for simultaneous reporting, see Sibley, 2012). By
contrast, when teams report sequentially, the initial report sets a standard
that influences all of the subsequent reports, because later-reporting teams
usually emphasize similarities and downplay differences with the initial
team’s position—that is, “answer drift” (Michaelsen et al., 2008). Unfor-
tunately, the absence of differences tends to reduce both the amount and
intensity of the discussion about differences that is so critical to learning.
The assignments used with other group-based approaches are much
less prescriptive and far less application focused than the 4-S team as-
signments in TBL. CL uses a wider range of activities than TBL, including
tasks at all levels of the Bloom’s Taxonomy: knowledge, comprehension,
application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Bloom, 1956). The main
requirements are that the tasks or learning activities must be suitable for
small-group interaction, and they must not be readily handled by indi-
viduals working alone. The three primary specifications for the group
tasks are that students have to be clear about what they are discussing,
how their conclusions will be reported, and how much time they have
to discuss the issues activity (see Millis and Cottell, 1998). Concepts can
also emerge in CL through exploration in the groups, followed by class
discussion to gain a common understanding of the concepts and their
critical attributes. CL instructors would agree with the appropriateness of
decision tasks for promoting higher-order thinking, but they would also
recognize other types of tasks to be legitimate and useful.
Although finding solutions to authentic, real-world problems is central
to both TBL and PBL, the functions of the problems, the solutions, and
the strategies for providing feedback on the quality of the teams’ work
are very different with TBL and PBL. With PBL, the primary focus is on
developing students’ understanding as they engage in three quite stan-
dard tasks that guide student efforts in relation to each problem situation.
These tasks are as follows: (1) identifying content learning goals related
to the problem (that is, what do we need to know to solve the problem);
68 Journal on Excellence in College Teaching

(2) allocating responsibility for conducting the research needed to find

information needed to answer the questions students have identified; and
(3) once the potentially useful information has been identified, working
together to solve the problem. Furthermore, in PBL, solving the problem
involves making clear conceptual connections between the problem and
the information gleaned in members’ research, and feedback on the qual-
ity of the teams’ efforts can come from a variety of sources, including the
facilitator, other teams who may be assigned to review their work, and
self-evaluations using pre-designed rubrics (Davidson & Major, 2013). In
TBL, however, solving the problem always involves making a decision.
Further, finding a solution (that is, making a decision) is not the end of
the learning cycle. The decisions are then simultaneously reported and
provide the basis for teams to receive feedback, first from other teams and,
eventually, from the instructor, whose initial responsibility is to facilitate
inter-team challenges and discussions.

Peer Assessment and Feedback

There are four very different reasons that peer assessment and feedback
are fundamental to TBL. One is to allay students’ fears about potential
“free-riders” that may have resulted from previous negative experiences
with poorly designed group assignments. In this case, peer evaluations
provide some reassurance that peers will have an incentive to do their
fair share. The other three reasons that peer assessment and feedback are
fundamental to TBL are related to the fact that the teams are permanent
and must become self-managed. First, peer assessment and feedback help
members to enhance both each other’s ability to work together effectively
(that is, process-related feedback) and to contribute ideas and information
(that is, content-related feedback). Second, because the teams are working
independently, the only individuals who can provide feedback are the
team members themselves. Finally, members typically develop working
relationships that provide both incentives and opportunities for helping
each other develop the interpersonal and teamwork skills that are so
important for their future success.
Peer assessment and feedback are far less important for either CL or
PBL. In CL, both the incentives and opportunities for peer assessment and
feedback are fewer than in TBL for at least three reasons. First, because
the groups are smaller, the task of managing the group processes is less
complicated and can be handled by a combination of assigning member
roles, post-activity process discussions, group structures, or instructor
facilitation. Second, there is less emphasis on grading group work in CL
 TBL Compared With CL and PBL 69

than in TBL; some CL models never employ group grades (Kagan & Ka-
gan, 2009). The issue of “free-riders” is critical in all group approaches,
but is less related to grades in CL than in TBL or PBL. Finally, because
much of the group interaction in CL is affected by role assignments or
activity structures or instructor intervention, it is very difficult to sort
out which outcomes (or lack thereof) are attributable to the members
themselves, as opposed to the roles or processing, group structures, or
instructor influence.
With PBL, even though the teams are permanent, there is still less of
a need for peer assessment and feedback. Because the group sessions
are under the guidance of a trained facilitator, members have far less of
a need to assist in managing the process; because the students have less
responsibility for managing the process, the majority of the feedback is
on members’ content-related contributions; and at least part of the feed-
back comes from the facilitator, because he or she is also in a position to
monitor the contributions of team members.

The Instructor’s Role in TBL, CL, and PBL

Many of the differences between TBL and other group-based in-
structional approaches, including CL and PBL, stem from the fact that
developing effective and self-managed teams is absolutely critical for
TBL, while self-managed teams are not generally an objective for the other
approaches. Thus, the TBL instructor’s role consists of creating conditions in
which teams will develop the ability to work effectively and independently. There
are three critical conditions for creating effective self-managed teams:
(1) providing resources (that is, permanent and strategically formed 5-7
member teams whose members are explicitly accountable for pre-class
preparation for the in-class group work), (2) using group tasks that require
making decisions and provide the opportunity for immediate performance
feedback (that is, tRATs and 4-S applications), and (3) ensuring that there
are incentives (both extrinsic and intrinsic) for individuals to prepare for
and participate in group activities and for groups to do high-quality work.
The opportunity for TBL groups to become self-managed teams results
from a combination of two conditions. First, the groups must have com-
plete freedom to manage their own interactions. Second, every activity
and assignment must be explicitly designed and managed to provide immediate
performance feedback. Both conditions are essential; if either is violated, the
team development process will be slowed and, if the violations persist,
may be completely derailed. For example, if the instructor prescribes
how the groups are to go about their work, then the feedback is about the
70 Journal on Excellence in College Teaching

instructor’s instructions, not about the groups’ choices. Further, without

feedback on the quality of their choices, groups have no way to evaluate
the effectiveness of the process they used to make them.
When groups do have immediate and ongoing feedback, however,
members automatically (that is, with no prompting whatsoever from the
instructor) and consistently engage in evaluating and improving their
processes while they are engaged in completing their assigned tasks (Sweet &
Sweet, 2009). With appropriate tasks, a number of positive changes occur
within the groups. Over time, as the groups develop into teams, they
• become more effective at using their members’
intellectual resources (at 25-30 hours of working togeth-
er—Watson et al., 1991).
• are better able to cope with and take advantage of the
resources potentially available in diverse groups (at
around 30 hours—Watson et al., 1993).
• utilize different strategies for resolving conflict in
reaching decisions. Early on, the dominant strategy is
“compromise”—everyone is willing to lose a little just
so they can reach agreement. Later on (at 25+ hours),
compromise is completely off the table, and the groups
use “problem solving” (Birmingham & Michaelsen,
1999).
• experience increases in their emotional intelligence
and interpersonal/team-management skills (Borges,
Kirkham, Deardorff, & Moore, 2012; Opatrny, McCord,
& Michaelsen, 2013).
While the ultimate objective of the group work in TBL, CL, and PBL is
essentially the same (that is, motivating students to engage in conversa-
tions about the content in ways that improve learning), the strategies for
achieving this outcome are very different. Further, because the creation of
self-managed teams is not central to the success of either CL or PBL, both
approaches can (and often do) use strategies that are effective in promoting
content-related discussions, but that also inhibit the team-development
process. For example, with both CL and TBL, instructors typically are
actively involved in managing the processes that the groups use as they
engage in their work. With CL, the instructor’s influence is often less direct,
because he or she is typically working with multiple groups. However,
many of the most widely used CL practices would not be a good fit for
 TBL Compared With CL and PBL 71

TBL for one of two reasons. In some cases, the lack of fit results from the
fact that the practices interfere with the groups’ ability to manage their
own processes. These practices would include assigning individual mem-
ber roles, limiting resources, and using structured interactions such as
think-pair-share and jigsaw. With other CL activities, the lack of fit with
TBL would be more of a time and/or effectiveness issue. Because every
group activity in TBL (tRATs and 4-S applications) is specifically designed
to promote both content learning and team development, activities that
focus solely on promoting open communications (community- and/or
team- building activities, post-activity group process discussions, and
the like) not only aren’t needed, they are far less effective than providing
real-time performance feedback while the groups/teams are engaged in doing
their actual content-related “work” (see Edmondson, Bohmer, and Pisano,
2001). With PBL, the involvement is often very direct. During most group
meetings, a trained facilitator is both physically present and expected to
intervene when direction is needed to keep the groups effective and on
task.

Fundamental Principles
for Designing and Facilitating
Team-Based Learning Courses
Six fundamental principles guide every aspect of designing and facil-
itating a TBL course: (1) Plan backwards and execute forwards, (2) use
mutually reinforcing activities in a specific sequence, (3) use a majority
of class time for higher-level thinking application activities, (4) use ac-
tivities and assignments so that they both promote learning and build
team relationships, (5) provide frequent and immediate feedback on
individual and team performance, and (6) employ a grading/reward
system that promotes both individual and team accountability for doing
high-quality work.

1. Plan Backwards and Execute Forwards.

In traditional lecture-based courses, teachers typically begin planning
a course by identifying what content they need to “cover.” In contrast, the
design of a TBL course requires instructors to use “backward design” to
get real clarity on what “mastery” looks like in their course (Wiggins &
McTighe, 1998). To get this clarity, instructors engage the design process
by asking themselves four questions (see Parmelee et al., 2013):
72 Journal on Excellence in College Teaching

• “What do I want my students to be able to do with the

material in this unit?” This question guides the devel-
opment of behavioral (not just knowledge) objectives.
• “How can I assess whether or not students can do what
I want them to be able to do?” This question guides the
design of activities that require students to do something
that is as close as possible to the desired behavioral
outcome(s) specified in question 1 above.
• “What will students need to know in order to do what
I want them to do?” This question guides the selection
of the content that students will be expected to master
prior to the first class meeting of the unit.
• “How can I assess whether students are ready to engage
in the activities in which they will demonstrate their
abilities to do what I want them to be able to do?” This
question guides the assessment of students’ pre-class
preparation.
The execution of TBL units follows exactly the reverse order, and,
although the processes are very different, the intent of the sequence is
similar to traditional teaching. In both cases, the objective is ensuring that
students are familiar with a set of concepts. With TBL this is done through
individual pre-class study and using a modest proportion of class time
for the Readiness Assurance Process and focused corrective instruction
(described above—see Michaelsen et. al, 2004). However, the majority of
class time for team activities focuses on enhancing and/or assessing stu-
dents’ ability to use course concepts. In contrast, with traditional teaching,
the majority of class time (if not all of it) is used for transmitting course
concepts from the instructor to students. Most of the application/critical
thinking work is done outside of class, either by individuals or by groups
that typically divide up the work required to produce a deliverable that
is submitted as a graded course assignment.

2. Use Mutually Reinforcing Activities in a Specific Sequence.

In contrast to the traditional model, in which a teacher’s role is pri-
marily to select and dispense content, the TBL instructor spends much
more time organizing content and facilitating the students’ experience
of helping each other learn the content and how it can be used to solve
problems. The sequence of the TBL Readiness Assurance process ensures
 TBL Compared With CL and PBL 73

that students get several chances to engage with content and to judge and
enhance their own level of understanding.
Using backwards design enables instructors to identify what content
students can and should learn on their own during pre-class preparation.
Many instructors have found that some form of “curating” of the content
can be very helpful in this step—for example, by creating reading guides
to help students focus their attention on the most important aspects of
the readings. Starting each unit with an iRAT gives students an initial
chance to judge their level of understanding of the material and, most
important, ensures that team members are accountable for their own
individual preparation. Next, during the tRAT, the immediate feedback
from their peers and the IF-AT answer sheets provides both an additional
incentive for students’ preparation and the opportunity to clarify their
understandings of course material. Further, the immediate feedback from
the IF-AT answer sheets enhances team development because, with each
answer scratch-off, teams learn how effectively they are using members’
input in reaching their decisions. This immediate performance feedback
both enables teams to become more effective and encourages individual
members to acquire teamwork skills. Further, the tRAT and the appeals
enable the teacher to identify and correct misunderstandings and/or gaps
in students’ knowledge while there is ample time for corrective instruction.
Finally, with well-designed applications activities, students learn why the
course content is of value and are even more motivated to go through the
cycle again with the next set of concepts.
By beginning each unit with the Readiness Assurance Process, teachers
can count on having teams whose members are intellectually and socially
prepared to work on challenging problems that support the development
of higher-level thinking skills. By contrast, in a traditionally taught course
that primarily involves knowledge dissemination, the teacher has very
little information about the level of his or her students’ content under-
standing and little or no opportunity to correct misconceptions. Further,
he or she has little or no ability to ensure that students will be effective
in working together should he or she decide to use a group assignment.

3. Use the Majority of Class Time for Applications/Critical Thinking.

TBL is not about covering content. From a student standpoint, the
overall “feel” of the class must be that the class is about learning to do
something as opposed to learning some facts so that they can pass a test.
With TBL, the instructor is making an implicit bargain with students: “If
you do the pre-class preparation, I’ll make sure that you are rewarded
74 Journal on Excellence in College Teaching

by having the opportunity to see why the ideas are important to you.”
The real payoff for students comes from opportunities to practice using
the content on well-designed (that is, “4-S”) assignments. That is how
to repay students for their effort to prepare for the RAP. In fact, having
challenging 4-S applications is, ultimately, the single most important
aspect of successfully implementing TBL. If students are able to see why
the material is important, everything pretty much falls into place.
By contrast, in traditional courses the primary in-class activity is the
teacher dispensing information. As a result, application-focused activities,
if there are any, almost always take place outside of class. Further, the as-
signments typically require either individuals or groups to create a lengthy
document and/or a presentation, and, with few exceptions, the feedback
on their work is delayed to the point that students are more concerned
about the grade they receive than the learning that the assignment was
intended to produce.

4. Use Assignments That Both Build Teams and Promote Learning.

The nature of the assignments largely determines the effectiveness
of learning groups in any setting. However, well-designed assignments
are particularly important in TBL, because the entire approach hinges
on being able to develop groups into self-managed teams. Fortunately,
assignments that require a high level of team interaction promote both
learning and team development (see Michaelsen et al., 2004). In most
cases, team assignments will generate a high level of interaction if they
(1) require teams to use course concepts to make decisions that involve a
complex set of issues and, (2) enable teams to report their decisions in a
simple form. When assignments emphasize making decisions, the sensible
approach is to complete the task by engaging each other in a give-and-take
content-related discussion (Roberson & Franchini, in this issue).
In contrast, assignments with complex outputs such as a lengthy docu-
ment and/or a group presentation that are often used in traditional courses
can completely undermine an attempt to implement TBL. This is because,
in a group project outside of class, instead of promoting interaction and
team development, the logical strategy for completing the assignment
is to divide up the work among team members. Unfortunately, the out-
come is that members are forced either to rely on one or two members to
do most of the work or to assign segments to individual members who
work pretty much alone on their part of the overall project. With either
approach, instead of building teams, assignments of this type are likely
 TBL Compared With CL and PBL 75

to create negative attitudes about group work. That’s because the more
students care about the grade, the more likely they are to feel that they
have choose between one of two negative outcomes: (1) having to do more
than their fair share of the work or (2) being at risk of getting a poor grade
if anyone fails to do their part.

5. Provide Frequent and Immediate Feedback

on Individual and Team Performance.
Immediate feedback is a primary instructional lever in TBL for two
very different reasons. First, feedback is essential to content learning and
retention—a notion that not only makes intuitive sense but is also well
documented in the educational research literature (for example, Bruning,
Schraw, & Ronning, 1994; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Kulik & Kulik, 1998).
Second, immediate feedback has tremendous positive impact on group
development (for a review, see Birmingham and McCord, 2004). Further,
immediate feedback is built into TBL’s standard practices. The use of IF-
AT answer sheets provides immediate feedback on both team members’
understanding and teams’ readiness for dealing with application prob-
lems. Similarly, simultaneously reported decisions on application-focused
assignments provide immediate feedback to both individuals and teams.
This is because the teams’ choices are based on discussions that have just
taken place, and their choices are open to challenges from both their peers
and the instructor during the inter-team discussions.
With traditional courses, feedback on content understanding typically
comes from midterm and final exams, and feedback on content applica-
tions is usually from the instructor after he or she has had the chance to
evaluate students’ work. As a result, the feedback is less effective than in
TBL, because it is both less frequent and is often delayed to the point that
there is little or no opportunity for corrective instruction. As a result, feed-
back in traditional instruction is almost exclusively summative in nature.

6. Employ a Grading/Reward System

That Promotes Individual and Team Accountability.
Providing immediate feedback on the level of students’ understanding
is one key to holding individuals and teams accountable for doing high
quality work. However, for many students, providing immediate feed-
back is not a sufficient source of motivation to ensure that they will do the
work needed to master and apply course concepts. For many students,
another key is using a reward system that links students’ grades to each
76 Journal on Excellence in College Teaching

of the activities that is essential for their own learning and for the success
of their team. Thus, an effective grading system for TBL must meet two
criteria (see Michaelsen et al., 2004). One criterion is that the grading
system must include three components: (1) individual performance, (2)
team performance, and (3) a peer assessment of individual members’
contributions to their team. The other is that each of the three components
must “count” enough so that students care about their score.
The grading system in most traditional courses is quite different. The
only thing that typically counts is individual performance, unless the
instructor assigns students to do a group project. In this case, he or she
is also likely to include group performance and, possibly, some form of
peer assessment as additional components in the grading system. Unfor-
tunately, however, even if the groups turn in a satisfactory “product,” the
resulting grades are often a source of what is commonly known as the
“free-rider” problem. In part the reason is that some, if not the majority,
of students will honestly believe that they have done more than their fair
share of the work. Furthermore, even if they believe they did more than
their fair share, students are often reluctant to give low grades to the group
members who failed to do their part.

Concluding Thoughts About TBL

Probably the two most unique aspects of team-based learning are that
it is highly dependent on being able to develop groups into self-managed
and effective teams, and its foundational practices enable very nearly 100%
of learning groups to develop into learning teams that are both capable
of self-management and highly effective. Over the past 30 years, first au-
thor Larry Michaelsen has created and worked with 1,800 teams in both
undergraduate and graduate classes, and in class sizes ranging from 7 to
240 students. During this time, only two teams have required any form
of outside intervention. Further, neither intervention lasted more than
five minutes, and both teams responded in a positive way and ended up
being successful. The clearest evidence for the effectiveness of the teams
comes from comparing the scores for the iRATs and tRATs. Based on the
available records (since 1986), the cumulative tRAT score of over 99.9+%
of the teams in Michaelsen’s TBL courses has been higher than the cumulative
iRAT score of its very highest-scoring member (1,201 of 1,202 teams). These
results are both profound and represent an outcome the clarity of which
is rarely, if ever, found anywhere in the social sciences.
There are two implications to these rather remarkable outcomes. One is
that, in combination, the four fundamental TBL practices are overwhelm-
 TBL Compared With CL and PBL 77

ingly effective in building effective and self-managed teams. The other

is that these fundamental practices are truly fundamental. If the four key
TBL practices are systematically and effectively implemented, groups will
develop into effective self-managed teams; if not, the team-development
process will be both slower and less reliable.
Thus, for the reasons outlined above in the discussion of TBL principles,
it is not only possible, but essential, to measure one’s TBL implementation
against the set of fundamental TBL practices described here (see Haidet et
al., 2012). Far too many faculty fail to realize that effectively using group
work requires more than simply giving group assignments. In fact, al-
though the problem probably exists with at least some CL and PBL users
as well, most experienced TBL practitioners have encountered faculty
colleagues who are adamant that TBL doesn’t work because they had a
bad experience with what they thought was TBL, when, in fact, they had
failed to implement even one of TBL’s fundamental practices.
On the other hand, faculty who deliberately and carefully implement
the 4-step TBL process— strategically forming permanent teams, em-
ploying the Readiness Assurance Process to familiarize students with
course content, using in-class 4-S assignments to develop students’ crit-
ical-thinking skills, and holding peers accountable to each other with a
peer assessment and feedback system—can be confident that the outcomes
will be positive in a wide variety of ways (see Haidet et al., 2014, in this
issue). More importantly, TBL creates classroom experiences that are much
more enjoyable and productive for both instructors and their students
because the students become partners in the learning process (see Sibley
and Ostafichuk, 2013).

Concluding Thoughts About the Relationship

Between TBL, CL, and PBL
Team-based learning, problem-based learning, and cooperative learning
are all forms of small-group learning, and they have much in common.
All three approaches foster active engagement of students in the learning
process by having students work together in purposefully formed small
groups. Further, unlike the group work (typically projects that require
producing a paper or presentation) used in conjunction with traditional
lecture-based courses, groups in TBL, CL, and PBL classes do their work
during class time.
The ultimate objective of the group work in TBL, CL, and PBL is
essentially the same—that is, motivating students to engage in conver-
sations about the content in ways that improve learning. Although the
78 Journal on Excellence in College Teaching

specific strategies for achieving that outcome are different, the focus
of class activity in all three approaches involves engaging students in
challenging problem situations that require critical and creative thinking
and interaction with other members of their group. All three approaches
also emphasize the importance of holding students accountable by using
some form of a summative assessment over the concepts related to the
group work. Finally, all three approaches have a solid base of evidence
that documents their effectiveness in achieving a wide variety of valuable
educational outcomes (see articles by Albanese and Dast, 2014, and by
Haidet et al., 2014, in this issue).
The biggest overall difference between TBL and CL and PBL is that TBL
is a very clearly defined set of practices and principles, while CL and PBL
are much larger “tents” under which a much wider range of practices for
using group work are housed. Major comparisons and contrasts among
TBL, CL, and PBL are discussed in this article. Many of these are sum-
marized in Table 1 using the following four dimensions: group formation
and size, concept familiarity, in-class assignments, and peer assessment
(see Burgiss, McGregor, and Mellis, 2014).
There are a number of possible approaches in both CL and PBL, and
each of these approaches has certain points in common, but many dif-
ferences. The CL approaches most frequently used in higher education
are the learning together (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 2014, in this issue),
structural (Kagan, 2014, in this issue), group investigation (Sharan &
Sharan, 1992), and eclectic (Millis, 2014, in this issue). The approaches
that represent the opposite ends of the PBL continuum are 7-step and
open-ended (Baud, Keogh, & Walker, 1985). For additional comparisons
and contrasts between TBL and these subsets of CL and PBL, we suggest
examining the points listed in Table 2 of the article by Davidson and
Major (2014, in this issue) in relation to the fundamental practices and
principles of TBL.

Conclusions
In conclusion, team-based learning, cooperative learning, and prob-
lem-based learning all have a common goal of optimizing student learning,
helping students develop higher-order thinking skills, and improving
learning process and products. Each of these methods has strong advo-
cates. They also each have a strong body of evidence to support them.
These methods all require engaged students, group work, and observable
products of learning. Each goes about getting there in different ways, with
more or less emphasis on the structures and sequencing of instructional
 Table 1
A Comparison of the Practices of Team-Based Learning,
Problem-Based Learning, and Cooperative Learning

Practice Team-Based Learning Problem-Based Learning Cooperative Learning

Team • Instructor-formed • Instructor-formed • Instructor-formed
Formation and • Permanent • Permanent • Typically heterogeneous
Size • Heterogeneous • Heterogeneous • 2-4 members–may vary with
• 5-7 members • 5-8+ members task

Ensuring Readiness Assurance: Start with problem: Activities vary:

Concept • iRAT • Set research goals • Lecture
Familiarity • tRAT • Member research* • Individual study
• Appeals • Peer teaching in team • Jigsaw
• Instructor tutorial discussions • etc.

In-Class "4-S" Assignments: Start with problem: Activities require:

TBL Compared With CL and PBL

Assignments • Significant problem • Set research goals • Face-to-face interaction

• Same problem • Member research* • Structured tasks suitable for
• Specific choice • Peer teaching in team group work
• Simultaneous report discussions • Interdependence
 
79
 80

Table 1 (continued)
 

A Comparison of the Practices of Team-Based Learning,

Problem-Based Learning, and Cooperative Learning

Practice Team-Based Learning Problem-Based Learning Cooperative Learning

Peer • Quantitative • Used in some forms of • Feedback during group
Assessment • Qualitative PBL process/reflection
• Formative • Under facilitator's • Peer assessment occasionally
• Summative direction used

Strategies for Develop self-managed Presence of a trained • Smaller groups

Promoting teams by using: facilitator who: • Group structures
Productive • Permanent groups • Monitors interaction • Assigned member roles
Interaction in • Grade incentives • Provides guidance • Post-activity
Groups/Teams • Peer assessment and when needed reflection/process
feedback discussions
• Provides feedback to • Team/class building
Facilitate immediate activities
performance feedback group/members
• Monitoring interaction
during/from:
Journal on Excellence in College Teaching

• Providing guidance when

• Readiness Assurance needed
• "4-S" assignments • Providing feedback to
group/members

Note. *between sessions to gather information for team discussions.

 
 TBL Compared With CL and PBL 81

activities. What they all offer higher education instructors, however, is

tried and true methods that engage students in learning and, in turn,
improve educational outcomes.

References
Aronson, E., & Patnoe, S. (2011). Cooperation in the classroom: The jigsaw
method (3rd ed.). London, UK: Pinter & Martin.
Baud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Promoting reflection in learning:
A model. In D. Boud, R. Keogh, & Y. D. Walker (Eds.), Reflection: Turning
experience into learning (pp. 18-40). London, UK: Kogan Page.
Birmingham, C., & McCord, M. (2004). Group process research: Implica-
tions for using learning groups. In L. K. Michaelsen, A. B. Knight, & L.
D. Fink (Eds.), Team-based learning: A transformative use of small groups
in college teaching (pp. 73-93). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Birmingham, C., & Michaelsen, L. K. (1999). Conflict resolution in decision
making teams: A longitudinal study. Proceedings of the Midwest Academy
of Management, Chicago, IL: Midwest Academy of Management.
Bloom B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook 1: The cog-
nitive domain. New York, NY: McKay.
Borges, N. J., Kirkham, K., Deardorff, A. S., & Moore, J. A. (2012). Devel-
opment of emotional intelligence in a team-based learning internal
medicine clerkship. Medical Teacher, 34, 802-806.
Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Ronning, R. R. (1994). Cognitive psychology
and instruction (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Burgess, A. S., McGregor, D. M., & Mellis, C. M. (2014). Applying es-
tablished guidelines to team-based learning in medical schools: A
systematic review. Academic Medicine, 89(4), 678-688.
David, F. R., David, M. E., & David, F. R. (2011). What are business schools
doing for business today? Business Horizons, 54(1), 51-62.
Davidson, N., & Major, C. (2014). Boundary crossings: Collaborative
learning, cooperative learning, and problem-based learning. Journal
on Excellence in College Teaching, 25(3&4), 7-56.
Davidson, N., & Worsham, T. (1992). Enhancing thinking through coop-
erative learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Edmondson, A., Bohmer, G., & Pisano, G. P. (2001). Speeding up team
learning. Harvard Business Review, 79(9), 125-134.
Fink, L. D. (2003) Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated
approach to designing college courses. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hart Research Associates. (2008). How should college assess and improve
student learning? Employers’ views on the accountability challenge.
82 Journal on Excellence in College Teaching

Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/leap/documents/2008_Busi-

ness_Leader_Poll.pdf
Haidet, P., Kubitz, K., & McCormack, W. T. (2014). Analysis of the team-ba�-
sed learning literature: TBL comes of age. Journal on Excellence in College
Teaching, 25(3&4), 303-333.
Haidet, P., Levine, R. E., Parmelee, D. X., Crow, S., Kelly, P. A., Perkowski,
L., Michaelsen, L. K., & Richards, B. E. (2012). Guidelines for reporting
team-based learning activities in the medical and health sciences edu-
cation literature. Academic Medicine, 87(3), 292-299.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Edu-
cational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (2014). Cooperative learning:
Improving university instruction by basing practice on validated theory.
Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25(3&4), 85-118.
Kagan, S. (2014). Kagan structures, processing, and excellence in college
teaching. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25(3&4), 119-138.
Kagan, S., & Kagan, M. (2009). Kagan cooperative learning. San Clemente,
CA: Kagan.
Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning.
Review of Educational Research, 58(1), 79-97.
Levine, R., Carchedi, L., Roman, B., Townsend, M., Cluver, J., Frank, J.,
Butler, A. . . . & Thompson, B. A. (2014, March). Comparison of team
cohesiveness and performance in team-based learning teams vs. conventional
student groups. Paper presented at the Team-Based Learning Collabo-
rative 13th annual Conference, Ft. Worth, TX.
McCormack, W., & Garvan, C. W. (2014). Team-based learning instruction
for responsible conduct of research positively impacts ethical decision-making.
Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health.
Major, C. H., & Eck, J. C. (2000). Connecting goals, methods, and measures:
A problem for problem-based learning. Assessment Update, 12(1), 1-2,
10-11.
McInerney, M. J., & Fink, L. D. (2003) Team- based learning enhances
long-term retention and critical thinking in an undergraduate microbial
physiology course. Microbiology Education, 4, 3-12.
Michaelsen, L. K., Knight, A. B., & Fink, L. D. (2004). Team-based learning: A
transformative use of small groups in higher education. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Michaelsen, L. K., Parmelee, D. X., McMahon, K., & Levine, R. E. (2007).
Team-based learning for health professions education: A guide to using small
groups for improving learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Michaelsen, L. K., Sweet, M., & Parmelee, D. X. (2008). Team-based learn-
ing: small group learning’s next big step. New Directions for Teaching
and Learning, 116, 7-27.
 TBL Compared With CL and PBL 83

Millis, B. J. (2014). Using cooperative structures to promote deep learning.

Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25(3&4), 139-148.
Millis, B. J., & Cottell, P. G. (1998). Cooperative learning for higher education
faculty. Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education and Oryx Press.
Opatrny, C., McCord, M., & Michaelsen, L. K. (2014). Can transferrable
team skills be taught? A longitudinal study. Academy of Educational Lead-
ership, 18(2), 85-96.
Ostafichuk, P. (2014) Application activities. In J. Sibley & P. Ostafichuk
(Eds.), Getting started with team-based learning (pp. 114-142). Sterling,
VA, Stylus.
Parmelee, D. X., Michaelsen, L. K., & Hudes, P. (2013). Team-based learn-
ing. In J. Dent & R. Harden (Eds.), A practical guide for medical teachers
(4th ed.). Edinburgh, UK: Elsevier.
Polk-Lepson Research Group. (2013). 2013 National professionalism survey:
Workplace report. York, PA: Center for Professional Excellence at York
College of Pennsylvania.
Roberson, B., & Franchini, B. (2013). Effective task design for the TBL
classroom. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25(3&4), 275-302.
Roberson, B., & Reimers, T. (2012). Team-based learning for reading and
critical thinking in literature and great books courses. In M. Sweet &
L. K. Michaelsen (Eds.), Team-based learning in the social sciences and hu-
manities: Group work that works to generate critical thinking and engagement
(pp. 129-142). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Sharan, S., & Sharan, Y. (1992). Expanding cooperative learning through group
investigation. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Sibley, J. (2012). Facilitating application activities. In M. Sweet & L. K. Mi-
chaelsen (Eds.), Team-based learning in the social sciences and humanities:
Group work that works to generate critical thinking and engagement (pp.
33-50). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Sibley, J., & Ostafichuk, P. (2014). Teamwork that works: guide to implementing
team-based learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Sweet, M., & Michaelsen, L. K. (2012). Team-based learning in the social
sciences and humanities: Group work that works to generate critical thinking
and engagement. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Sweet, M., & Pelton-Sweet, L. (2008). The social foundation of team-based
learning: Students accountable to students. In L. K. Michaelsen, M.
Sweet, & D. X. Parmelee (Eds.), Team-based learning: Small group learn-
ing’s next big step. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 116, 29-40.
Watson, W. E., Kumar, K., & Michaelsen, L. K. (1993). Cultural diversity’s
impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homog-
enous and diverse task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36,
590-602.
84 Journal on Excellence in College Teaching

Watson, W. E., Michaelsen, L. K., & Sharp, W. (1991). Member competence,

group interaction, and group decision making: A longitudinal study.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 803-810.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. H. (1998) Understanding by design. Columbus,
OH: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Larry K. Michaelsen (Ph.D. in organizational psychology from The University of

Michigan) is David Ross Boyd professor emeritus at the University of Oklahoma, professor
of management at the University of Central Missouri, a Carnegie Scholar, a three-time
Fulbright Senior Scholar, and a former editor of the Journal of Management Education.
Since initially developing team-based learning (TBL) in the late 1970s, he has used it with
over 1,800 teams in his own classes. He has also co-authored four books and numerous
journal articles on TBL and conducted TBL workshops in a wide variety of settings. These
include workshops at over 250 schools in the U.S. and in 22 foreign countries and at
conferences of more than 20 different professional disciplines. Neil Davidson did pio-
neering work in developing small group cooperative learning in mathematics in the 1960s.
His publications include the co-edited books, Cooperative Learning in Mathematics:
A Handbook for Teachers; Enhancing Thinking Through Cooperative Learning
(with Toni Worsham); Professional Development for Cooperative Learning: Issues
and Approaches (with Celeste Brody); and Cooperative Learning in Undergraduate
Mathematics: Issues That Matter and Strategies That Work (with Elizabeth Rog-
ers, Barbara Reynolds, and Tony Thomas). Neil is a frequent presenter at national and
international conferences and a consultant on cooperative learning for school districts,
colleges, and universities. He was a founding member of the International Association for
the Study of Cooperation in Education (IASCE) and served as its president for five years.
Neil’s professional specialty areas include mathematics education, teacher education, and
faculty and staff development. He is professor emeritus of curriculum and instruction,
University of Maryland, where he directed a doctoral program in professional develop-
ment. He has led numerous faculty development sessions for the University Center for
Teaching Excellence, and he developed their Faculty Consultation Program. He also served
as associate dean for undergraduate studies for the entire campus. He is currently active
in the Academy for Excellence in Teaching and Learning, which he co-founded. Claire
Howell Major is a professor at the University of Alabama, where she teaches courses on
college and university teaching, technology and higher education, and qualitative research
methods. Her research and professional writing focus on instructional methods, including
problem-based, collaborative, and online learning, as well as on research methods, such
as qualitative research synthesis and qualitative research. She has published books on
problem-based learning (with Maggi Savin-Baden), collaborative learning (with Elizabeth
Barkley and K. Patricia Cross), qualitative research synthesis (with Maggi Savin-Baden),
and qualitative research (with Maggi Savin-Baden). Her most recent book, titled Online
Learning as Instructional Change, will be published in 2015).