Team-Based Learning at UMass Amherst: The Impact on Students’ Learning Experiences  

To read a PDF version of this report, click here.

The University of Massachusetts Amherst has made substantial investments in Team-Based Learning (TBL) classrooms and instruction in an effort to enhance students' learning experiences including, in fall 2014, a new classroom building that featured five TBL classrooms. While research suggests there is value of these kinds of activities in enhancing student learning, students may be resistant to these approaches, especially when they are accustomed to more passive and individually driven learning environments. To explore the potential impact that TBL may have on student learning experiences, the Office of Academic Planning and Assessment (OAPA) conducted a two-year study of students’ experiences in a set of TBL courses (selected through an invitation to TBL course instructors). In this report, we focus on students’ experiences with group work in these TBL courses, comparing students’ pre- and post-course survey responses, both in the aggregate and by each participating TBL course. 

Study Methodology 

Students were surveyed on the first day of class and again near the end of the semester to assess changes in attitudes and preferences over the course of the semester. Each semester, the number of included TBL courses expanded. Across the life of the project, 31 courses were surveyed for a total of 2,518 undergraduate student respondents. Many of these courses had multiple sections, and the sections were aggregated for ease of analysis. Three of the courses were surveyed in multiple semesters, with one course participating in all three semesters. Changes were made to the survey instrument from the initial survey in fall 2014 to the second survey in fall 2015. Though this limits the direct comparison of fall 2014 data to the other two semesters, there are a subset of items that are common across the two instruments that we used for aggregate analysis. 

A Focus on the Quality and Impact of Team-Based Group Work 

The common items across the three semesters include a subset of six questions that asked students about their attitudes regarding a core component of TBL: group work. The items asked students about the quality of their group work interactions, focusing on whether group members worked together effectively, contributed equally in assignments, and interacted respectfully. This set of items also asked students about the impact of group work on their own learning: whether it enhanced their learning, helped them develop their interpersonal skills, and if they enjoyed group work. These items were asked of students both at the start of the semester (in the pre-survey about their prior experiences with group work) and at the end of the semester (in the post-survey about their experiences “in this [TBL] course”). Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the pre/post comparisons of students’ views on group work at the beginning of semester (T1) and end of semester (T2). 

Together these results suggest students develop more positive views of group work after taking the TBL course.

Another item that focused on group work asked students about their individual learning preferences with respect to working independently or collaboratively (Figure 3). 

Figure 3 shows little change in students’ learning styles over the duration of the semester. It is interesting that the most notable shift is an increased preference for a more blended approach (preference for both collaborative and independent approaches). Half of the shift is in students moving away from a preference for collaborative work 
(perhaps suggesting negative experiences in their TBL course), but there is also a 1% shift from working independently and not knowing their preference. 

Variability by Course: Not All TBLs Are Alike 

One limitation to presenting this data in the aggregate is that we lose sight of the potential variability in student experiences by course. To get a better sense of this, we created a Group Work Quality scale that combines the six items identified in Figures 1 and 2 above. We then used that scale to consider students’ ratings of their group work experience across courses, both on the “pre” survey and the “post” survey. 

Figure 4 shows students’ mean Group Work Quality rating at the start and end of the semester for each course  (each represented by a different dot). The figure also shows the average overall rating across all courses (indicated by the red dot). 

Note the wide range of students’ ratings of their prior experience with group work at the start of the semester (T1) and how, at the end of the semester after their experience in the TBL course (T2), the dispersion in ratings is much narrower, with most means in the 3.0 to 3.5 range. The narrowing variability suggests more commonality in these students’ experiences with group work in the TBL courses than in their previous course experiences. However, there is still a range in ratings of overall quality across these courses, with mean ratings ranging from a low of 2.53 to a high of 3.75. 

There are many potential explanations for the variations that we see. One factor is the quality and quantity of students’ exposure to TBL or other forms of group learning prior to enrolling in the TBL courses in this study. Obviously, their prior experiences with group work can influence their preconceptions and expectations for group work (and TBL). 
Another factor is instructor implementation of TBL. TBL pedagogy can take many forms. It serves as a framework that can be used to scaffold a wide range of activities, assignments, and group structures. Variation in implementation can affect student perceptions of TBL and their resultant attitudes in Time 2. The T2 results presented in Figure 4 illustrate the challenge of maintaining consistency and quality in TBL experiences across all courses. 

To explore some of this variation, we reviewed the results for two courses in our sample that were taught in more than one semester by the same faculty member. We hypothesized that as faculty members continued to use TBL pedagogy in their classrooms, their process for integrating and using TBL would improve and result in more positive group work experiences for students. To test this, we compared the Time 2 survey results for each iteration of the course. For instance, one course was taught in both fall 2015 and spring 2016. We looked at the Time 2 results for each of these semesters to see if the second semester results showed more positive student-reported attitudes toward TBL. We found that, again, the pattern over time depends on the course. The results for Course A (Figure 5), suggest that our hypothesis is correct. Students in spring 2016 rated each of the Group Work items higher in Time 2 than the students in the course in fall 2015 did. 

However, the results for Course B do not support the hypothesis (Figure 6). In this case, there is not much change in ratings from the first and second semester except on two items, one of which is higher in the second offering (Develop Interpersonal Skills) and one where the second rating is lower (Contribute Equally). These results provide an illustration of the complexity of understanding TBL course effectiveness across multiple course sections taught in different ways, by different instructors. 

Summary and Next Steps 

These results suggest the potential benefits of TBL in developing students’ capacities to effectively work in groups and broadening their appreciation for active learning strategies. As the University continues to expand its TBL course offerings, students will have increased opportunities to practice the group work skills central to TBL pedagogy and, as a result, enhance the skills that so many of UMass alumni say they use extensively in their careers after college.1

The results, particularly the comparisons of results across course sections, also highlight the importance of providing instructors with development opportunities and feedback that will help them continue to improve their TBL instruction. This research project contributed to instructional development by providing course-specific results to each instructor so they could use the student feedback to inform their instruction. Studies that focused not only on students’ attitudes towards and ratings of TBL pedagogy, but also on actual student learning and performance in these courses, are important next steps in marking the actual impact of TBL in enhancing student learning and preparation. 

[1]: See “Student Self-Reported Outcomes” for UMass alumni’s report of skills used in their post-University careers.