Team-Based Learning: A life science face-to-face case study
When recalling what a large introductory life science course looked like during our time as undergraduates, most of us would agree that it could be intimidating and lonely. Often it was an instructive but lackluster experience where a myriad of information was conveyed by a lecturer. Clearly, some students were fortunate to have incredible lecturers, but these exceptions were not the norm. A national report assessing course strategies in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields showed that most STEM courses use lectures as their main teaching strategy with few courses using student-centered strategies (Stainset al. , 2018).
Compared to traditional introductory life science courses which place the lecturer in the center of the classroom, TBL classrooms are centered around the student. TBL classrooms prepare students before entering the classroom by requiring them to do pre-class assignments, and frequently use polling and team activities during class to help students learn and provide the instructor with feedback (Michaelsen & Sweet, 2008). As a result, students are often engaged in lively conversations about core concepts in a TBL classroom. This shift from a lecture-focused to student-centered classroom improves students’ understanding of the learning objectives and ability to apply concepts beyond the end of the course (Armbruster et al. , 2009; Tanner, 2013). The use of active learning activities improves overall student performance and retention, in addition to providing equitable opportunities to underrepresented minority students in STEM (Freeman et al. , 2014; Ballen et al. , 2017; Theobald et al. , 2020). Therefore, TBL provides a framework to achieve student engagement, desired learning outcomes, and retention in the classroom (Clark et al. , 2008, 2018; Michaelsen & Sweet, 2008).
We implemented TBL in the face-to-face introduction to evolution and biodiversity course at Cornell University, a class with an average enrollment of 200 students. The students are placed in formal pre-determined teams of five students for the duration of the term. Formal teams provide students with peers to discuss course material and create interdependence among team members, promoting community and accountability in a big classroom (Michaelsen & Sweet, 2008; Donovanet al. , 2018). Several team building practices can be used to create strong and cohesive teams, most of them requiring careful consideration of several demographic and academic variables (Donovan 2018). We created groups that were diverse in gender and other intersectional identities (science education, nationality, majors, etc.), by asking students to fill out a short survey about several of these social identities prior to the first week of classes (see survey on Appendix 1). Students come prepared to class to take an individual quiz (Individual Readiness Assurance Test [iRAT]; Michaelsen & Sweet, 2008) based on the pre-lecture assignments (e.g. short videos and readings), then they revisit and clarify the materials a second time by taking the same quiz with their teammates (Team Readiness Assurance Test [tRAT]; Michaelsen & Sweet, 2008). After a short lecture, the students work together on applying concepts they learned about to real-life scientific scenarios (See Figure 2 for a class structure example). Why is this extremely structured course so popular with some instructors and students? The short answer: TBL has strong positive outcomes for students; not only do students get higher scores and understand concepts better, but they also experience increases in accountability, sense of belonging, and retention (Kim et al. , 2005; Michaelsen & Sweet, 2008; Ballen et al. , 2017; Donovanet al. , 2018).