[This is a guest post by Michael Sweet, Ph.D., the director of Instructional Development for the Center for Teaching and Learning at the University of Texas, Austin.]
Ah, November. Crisp air, leaves turning colors and the looming dread of mediocre group papers and tedious group presentations through which we will soon suffer. With finals on the horizon, we see rising levels of tension and resentment in our student groups, as good students assume more responsibility for their group’s final product, grinding their teeth as they feel forced to “carry” the slackers among them.
Next term, it doesn’t have to be this way.
There is a better design for group work that can stimulate the kind of engaged give-and-take discussion we want our students to have as they learn to use the intellectual tools of our disciplines.
We all want students to learn how to do our disciplines, but with exceptions like labs and field trips, the college classroom mostly prohibits us from involving students in real, raw disciplinary practice. What we can do in the classroom is give students practice making the kinds of decisions that we make in our disciplines—giving them what John Dewey calls “dramatic rehearsal” for real-world problem solving. Our disciplines are, after all, defined by the kinds of questions they ask and how they go about answering those questions.
Bottom line: effective group assignments do not require students to collectively author a paper or make a presentation. Writing and presenting are often individual tasks, and charging a group with these tasks, without special guidance on how to perform them, is to set up yourself (and your students) up for frustration and mediocrity. On the contrary, effective group assignments simply give groups a set of data and require them to make a difficult decision, much like a courtroom jury is given a great deal of complex information and asked to render a “guilty or not guilty” decision. In this format, student energy is focused on analyzing different pieces of evidence, weighing their merits against one another, and using the concepts from your discipline to argue toward a “best” conclusion together.
Instead of “group projects” think of these as “application activities” taking the form: “Given X, students must decide Y.” Of course, X and Y will vary based upon your discipline, topic and learning goal, but experience has provided a few basic principles for how these activities can best be carried out. Each of these principles starts with the letter S, so we have come to call these “Four S Activities.”
1. Significant Problem
Students should work on a problem, case, or question demonstrating a concept’s usefulness so they understand its impact. Instead of asking students to discuss some abstract set of conceptual distinctions, embed those distinctions within a set of concrete circumstances that would be likely to occur within your discipline. The idea here is to create a case study that grounds the experience in sets of details that would matter in your discipline.
2. Specific choice
Within the case, students should be required to use course concepts to make a decision (With which of the following three statements would Foucault most likely agree? Should the company buy, lease, or rent a fleet of trucks? Were Carnegie and Rockefeller “Robber Barons” or “Captains of Industry”? Which part of this bridge design is the most dangerous?). Groups can be required to generate short, written rationales for their choice, but groups must first be required to take a position.
3. Same problem
Students should all work on the same problem, case, or question so they will care about what other groups think about it and energetically engage each other around the course content. If my group had one question and your group had another, I’ll have invested no energy in the details of your question and will probably tune out while you talk about it. However, if our groups addressed the same question but came to different conclusions, then I will want to hear what thinking led your group down a different path than the one mine took.
4. Simultaneous reporting
If possible, students should report choices at the same time so differences in group conclusions are not smoothed out by “answer drift” and can be explored. It can be a powerful instructional experience when a minority of students in the room actually come to a better answer than the rest, and when answers are reported sequentially, students in the minority can be strongly tempted to change their answers as their minority status becomes clearer.
Simultaneous reporting can take many forms: from simple methods like pointing to one wall, the ceiling, or the other wall—to more sophisticated methods like having groups hold up cards indicating their choice (A,B,C,D), or even posting their answers and brief rationales on the classroom wall so they can “gallery walk” the thinking of other teams. ”Clickers” are used by many teachers to achieve the simultaneous reporting effect.

The best application activities not only stimulate intra-team discussion, they also stimulate inter-team discussion once the groups have reported their decisions. When all groups report their decisions, the teacher’s job is then to facilitate conversation among the groups to compare how and why they thought differently and came to different decisions. This is why simultaneous report is so important: when groups report simultaneously, differences between decisions are candidly revealed and can be explored by encouraging teams to explain the rationales for their choices to one another.
Some teachers use cases that clearly have a right answer and grade teams accordingly, some teachers do not grade choices but instead grade rationales given, and some teachers use ungraded application assignments when they feel the discussion itself is valuable enough to have in its own right.
These application activities are part of Team-Based Learning (TBL), an increasingly-popular form of collaborative learning in higher education. Team-Based Learning interlocks and amplifies students’ social and intellectual experience of the classroom unlike any other form of group work. To see it for yourself, you can watch a video with real footage of TBL in action here: http://www.utexas.edu/academic/ctl/teaching/tblvideo.php
You can plug in to the growing community of TBL practitioners around the world at www.teambasedlearning.org. The site hosts a very practical and collegial listserv, as well as a place for TBL users to exchange materials with one another. The TBL Collaborative is currently collecting application activities from many disciplines to turn this into a real “case bank” and will make a robust library available to members in April, 2011.
Have you tried team-based learning, or an equivalent? How do groups work in your classes? Let us know in comments!




11 Responses to Group Work that Works (Even in Large Classes!)
johnfritz - November 5, 2010 at 6:19 pm
Great post, Michael.
I stumbled across TBL while sitting in on a workshop by Dee Fink and Larry Michaelsen during the 2005 POD conference in Milwaukee, WI. Like my students, I was sick of group projects, but that simple TBL demo workshop was great. I just didn’t have a clue how to do it. As I experimented, I realized I had to “un-learn” so many assumptions I’d made in my own teaching (and learning). My first class had mixed results, in part because I tried to do a “little bit” of TBL. After reading the TBL book, I took the plunge and committed to it fully for the second class, and saw much better results.
Even though I support our use of instructional technology, I think TBL is one of the best approaches to teaching & learning I’ve ever seen. I never tire of seeing teams of students huddle over the Immediate Feedback – Assessment Technique (IF-AT) “scratch off” forms, to see if their consensus answer was indeed the right one during the readiness assurance test to start a class or new module. This may be “analog” technology, but nothing beats it in my opinion. The energy is palpable. Same goes for the all important “simultaneous” report (or what I think is like the “reveal” on an HGTV “makeover” show). You can instantly see the light bulbs go off as students confirm (or change) their thinking.
I don’t teach anymore, but we’ve been including TBL demos in our hybrid course redesign workshop for faculty. Hybrid or blended learning is a great way leverage TBL because both approaches require and structure more student responsibility for learning and content coverage.
It does take a commitment–and finding the time to do that is probably the hardest step. But TBL works. Period. It’s transformative and I’m glad to see more light shining on it. Keep it up.
Thx,
John Fritz
Asst. VP, Instructional Technology & New Media
UMBC Division of Information Technology
11640919 - November 7, 2010 at 5:23 pm
Michael:
Do we have any hard evidence that TBL works?
Are there well designed experiments comparing TBL with traditional pedagogy?
Are the results statistically significant?
What specific elements of TBL work?
What is the ideal length of time to devote to such an exercise?
Will TBL work as well with any discipline?
Jim Fay
beichner - November 8, 2010 at 6:34 am
Mr. Fay,
You may want to visit http://scaleup.ncsu.edu for an introduction to a team-based learning environment that is backed up by well designed experiments with statistically significant results in multiple disciplines. In physics, with data from 16000 students over 5 years, we saw women’s failure rates drop by a factor of 5, minorities by 4. The approach has been adopted at more than 100 universities. For a full list of the papers, you can request full access to the site.
Bob Beichner
NC State
melissawalker - November 8, 2010 at 7:46 am
Very helpful post. Thanks.
12035470 - November 8, 2010 at 8:20 am
I assign my begninning journalism students group project in which they compete for a prize. Three or four groups of 4-6 students each select an editor, writer, copy editor and reporters to investigate a campus issue of their own choosing. Their reports are read in the final class, and I award the winners. They are not graded, becaue of the inherent problems of equitable distribution of labor, but I will bump up members of the winning team if their grades are on the bubble. I’ve found this works well in enhancing their skills, their group solidarity, their communication with each other and their positive feelings about the class.
cliftonw - November 8, 2010 at 1:44 pm
I had the privilege of taking courses with Dr. Michaelsen at the University of Oklahoma and he was the outside member of my dissertation committee. I have used his TBL model of instruction since I was a GTA at OU and I find it energizing for me and the students. It is great to see his work being given its rightful due.
I would note that his grading scheme alleviates the issue of equitable distribution of labor.
jimsibley - November 8, 2010 at 4:05 pm
For those interested in the evidence
A TBL Webinar series was hosted by IAMSE in the past few months
The final talk was by Paul Haidet from Penn State and he walked us thru the TBL literature
http://www.iamse.org/development/2010/was_2010_fall.htm
Jim Sibley
UBC
rcbramhall - November 8, 2010 at 4:51 pm
In response to Jim Fay:
Do we have any hard evidence that boring lectures requiring regurgitation of knowledge work?
Are there well designed experiments comparing boring lectures with traditional pedagogy?
Are the results statistically significant?
What specific elements of boring lectures work?
What is the ideal length of time to devote to a boring lecture?
Will a boring lecture work as well with any discipline?
What is “traditional pedagogy” anyway? Traditional doesn’t mean “good” – it just means its been done for a long time. We do lots of things for a long time that aren’t very good. And yet no one asks for proof when something is “traditional”, only when something is new and unfamiliar.
missoularedhead - November 13, 2010 at 10:42 am
This is great for traditional classroom and even online learning environments, but what about the class in which specific information must be imparted, leaving little time for in-class group work, coupled with a class of students who, by and large, have full time jobs, children, etc.? I tend to assign a group report in which each person does a specific section, thus de-grouping the grade from the project. If a section doesn’t get done…well, we know who was assigned that piece, and the others don’t suffer for it.
cbwright - November 16, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Dear Missoularedhead, every faculty member has specific information to impart. I teach a business discipline that is heavily math dependent. I have found that teaching in a hybrid fashion where the lectures are on-line via Adobe PResenter (we meet on-line in lieu of class some days) has actually given me MORE time to meet with my students i-class to clarify the content and learn it via real TBL applications.
My student teams have enough in-class time to really work on applications of the material that they report no need to meet as a team outside of class. Learning has improved and my students are less stressed out about working with their classmates. In fact, most are surprised that they actually like working in teams (when class time is available to do so) and that they like being able to listen to my lectures more than once as they abosorb the content.
Keep seeking a way to make team work meaningful and new modes of delivering your ‘specific information’.
wbrescia - November 23, 2010 at 10:53 am
We are talking about ‘content delivery’ time rather than contact time. Content delivery could be in the form of a lecture, a recorded lecture, a text book or article reading or something else. We all need to get content to students. TBL requires that students have the content before they engage in the tbl session. We are figuring lots of content delivery time goes into one tbl session.