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).