Higher Education Research & Development

ISSN: 0729-4360 (Print) 1469-8366 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cher20

Enhancing critical thinking using team-based

learning

Molly Espey

To cite this article: Molly Espey (2017): Enhancing critical thinking using team-based learning,
Higher Education Research & Development, DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2017.1344196

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1344196

Published online: 30 Jun 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 28

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cher20

Download by: [University of Connecticut] Date: 06 July 2017, At: 11:43

HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1344196

Enhancing critical thinking using team-based learning

Molly Espey
John E. Walker Department of Economics, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study examines students’ perceptions of the development of Received 11 March 2016
academic and critical thinking skills in college, with a specific Accepted 12 May 2017
focus on team-based learning (TBL), an active learning strategy
KEYWORDS
designed to increase student interaction and engagement. Six Team-based learning; critical
hundred and fifty students in five different courses were surveyed thinking; active learning;
at the beginning of the semester about the extent to which they economic education; student
felt the typical college course enhances various academic and perceptions
critical thinking skills. These responses were compared to their
responses after a semester of TBL regarding the extent to which
the TBL environment enhanced these same skills. Students
expressed significantly greater improvement in critical thinking
skills in a TBL environment in comparison to typical courses for
most of the skills assessed and greater improvement in all of
these skills in comparison to lecture-based courses. These results
held for every demographic subgroup examined, including males,
females, freshman, sophomores, juniors and seniors, as well as all
levels of academic achievement as measured by grade point
average.

Introduction
While critical thinking may be difficult to define, development of critical thinking skills is a
principal goal of education, particularly higher education. Students are increasingly faced
with a plethora of data and opinions online, challenging their ability to identify key infor-
mation upon which to base an analysis or to complete research. Unfortunately, evidence
suggests a significant number of college students demonstrate few gains in critical and
analytical thinking during their time in college. Arum and Roksa (2010) analyzed the
results of 2300 students on the Collegiate Learning Assessment, a test designed to
measure gains in critical thinking, analytic reasoning and other higher order thinking
skills taught at college, at various points before and during their college educations.
They found that 45% of students ‘did not demonstrate any significant improvement in
learning’ during the first two years of college, 36% did not over four years of college,
and those who did show improvements tended to show only modest improvements.
At the same time, critical thinking skills are of increasing importance to employers. The
number of job postings mentioning critical thinking doubled between 2009 and 2014
(Korn, 2014) and a recent survey indicates that nearly all employers (93%) place greater
importance on ‘a demonstrated capacity to think critically, communicate clearly and

CONTACT Molly Espey mespey@clemson.edu

© 2017 HERDSA
2 M. ESPEY

solve complex problems’ than on a job candidate’s undergraduate major and more than
75% want colleges to place more emphasis on critical thinking (Hart Research Associates,
2013). Employers claim that limited critical thinking skills is a significant problem with
new hires, with only 28% rating four-year college graduates as ‘excellent’ (Society for
Human Resource Management, 2008).
Thus, the importance of college graduates’ ability to question assumptions, synthesize
information, evaluate evidence, draw inferences and make reasoned arguments stretches
beyond the classroom to the workplace. Critical thinking skills do not improve without
practice, however; effective teaching methods engage students with course material and
with each other, challenging them to think through relevant issues and problems.
Although faculty have shifted to more learner-centered approaches to teaching, lecture
still predominates for more than half of faculty responding to a recent survey (Eagan
et al., 2014). Yet, active learning methods such as collaborative learning and problem-
based learning (PBL) have been found to engage students, improve attitudes and increase
learning (Prince, 2004). While engagement or problem solving alone does not guarantee
improved critical thinking, several studies have also found improvements in critical think-
ing associated with active learning (Kim, Sharma, Land, & Furlong, 2013; Shin, Sok, Hyun,
& Kim, 2014). None of these studies, however, examines team-based learning (TBL) and
critical thinking, a gap in the literature addressed by this research.
Specifically, this study seeks to determine whether or not students feel that TBL
enhances various academic and critical thinking skills more than other teaching
methods do. This is accomplished by employing pre- and post-surveys of students’ percep-
tions of their critical thinking skill development in a ‘typical college course’ (pre-survey)
and in a TBL course (post-survey). As a robustness check, students also directly compare
their perceived gains in these skills in the TBL classroom to lecture-based courses. Differ-
ences in responses across various demographic groups and students with different levels of
academic achievement are also analyzed.

Critical thinking and active learning

The Foundation for Critical Thinking defines critical thinking as ‘the art of analyzing and
evaluating thinking with a view to improving it’ (Paul & Elder, 2006). Halpern described
critical thinking as a tool to facilitate decision-making and problem solving in a manner
that increases the likelihood of ‘a desirable outcome’ (Halpern, 2003). Critical thinkers are
open-minded and communicate effectively with others (Paul & Elder, 2006). Critical
thinking skills include asking relevant questions, defining a problem, examining evidence,
analyzing assumptions, synthesizing information, drawing inferences and making
reasoned arguments (Facione, 1999). It is development of these skills that is the focus
of this study.
While some feel that critical thinking is discipline-specific (Moore, 2004), others con-
sider it a transferable generic skill (Davies, 2013). In their meta-analysis of instructional
interventions and critical thinking skills, Abrami et al. (2008) find positive, significant
impacts of collaboration among students and of the immersion method, where critical
thinking is regarded as a by-product of instruction. Heijltjes, Van Gog, Leppink, and
Paas (2014) test this finding with a focus on the critical thinking skills of economics stu-
dents by analyzing the impact of declarative critical thinking instruction followed by some
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 3

combination of practice, self-explanation and activation prompts on students’ reasoning

skills using pre- and post-experiment tests. They find that critical thinking instruction
without practice did not result in significant sustained effects on reasoning skills, but
that practice led to significant improvements in reasoning.
Analyzing the use of teams in an undergraduate microbial physiology course, McInerney
and Fink (2003) found that students were much more likely to indicate that the instructor
encouraged critical thinking in comparison to the same course without team activities.
Gokhale (1995) found that students learning collaboratively improved their performance
on a test of critical thinking skills significantly more than students learning individually.
Kek and Huijser (2011) outline characteristics of PBL that promote critical thinking skills
and Pepper (2010) qualitatively assesses students’ perceptions of PBL with some themes,
such as considering different viewpoints, related to critical thinking. Sendag and Odabasi
(2009) noted significant improvements in critical thinking skills among students working
in a collaborative online PBL group. There remains, however, a dearth of quantitative
measures relating collaborative learning methods and critical thinking skills.
Rather than measuring critical thinking skills directly, this study focuses on students’
perceptions of the development of these skills. Previous research has found student self-
reports to be reliable, producing consistency between student assessments and outcomes
across a range of tasks (Fitzgerald, Gruppen, & White, 2000; Hinton, 1993; Ross, 2006).
This study builds on this literature focusing on the relationship between pedagogy and
critical thinking skills by analyzing students’ perceptions of their relative learning gains
in a TBL environment versus in other college courses.

Team-based learning
TBL has been implemented in courses across the disciplines, from health sciences to
engineering, from business to life sciences, social sciences and humanities (Hawkins,
2014; Michaelsen, Knight, & Fink, 2002; Sweet & Michaelsen, 2012). In TBL, students
work in the same team of five to seven students throughout the semester, with daily inter-
action and engagement with course material involving both graded and ungraded activi-
ties. Sweet and Michaelsen (2012) describe the four pieces of ‘the practical framework of
TBL’ as proper teams, the readiness assessment process, 4-S application exercises and
student peer evaluations. TBL is learner-centered but highly structured, with both individ-
ual and group accountability built into the course. In the courses analyzed here, perma-
nent teams of five to seven students are formed by the instructor at the beginning of
the semester per Michaelsen et al. (2002), with a focus on creating diversity within all
teams by accounting for differences in grade point average, major, class level, gender
and geographic diversity. Each course is subdivided into five units. Multiple-choice readi-
ness assessment tests (RATs) are administered at the start of each unit covering basic con-
cepts presented in the text, first to individuals, then to teams. These RATs encourage
individual preparation, while the team assessments and team activities hold individuals
accountable to their peers. No team activities are required outside of the class.
Students engage daily with the material in their teams through a variety of activities,
including 4-S application exercises. These application exercises are significant, involve
specific choices, include the same problem for all teams and require simultaneous report-
ing. Significant problems are meaningful, engaging students in concrete examples so they
4 M. ESPEY

understand the relevance of the course concepts. Specific choices require teams to take a
position, sometimes also requiring them to support that position with a short rationale for
their choice. For example, in the introductory class, students may evaluate the impact of
market events on equilibrium price of a good. In the environmental economics course,
they may propose a policy to cost effectively reduce manatee deaths in certain waterways
in Florida and compare effectiveness across proposals.1 Forcing all students to confront
the same problem enhances engagement across teams, while simultaneous reporting pre-
cludes teams from simply agreeing with the majority of others, forcing them to decide
before knowing what other groups will say.
Individual homework assignments, exams and peer evaluations ensure that students
cannot free-ride on the efforts of their teammates. While the implementation of peer
evaluations varies across TBL instructors, they generally involve both quantitative and
qualitative evaluation, are anonymous, and include a mid-semester formative assessment
as well as end-of-semester summative assessment. In the courses analyzed here, peer
evaluations are used to weight the team component of each individual’s grade. TBL
thus fosters critical thinking by engaging students daily in addressing questions, solving
problems, parsing data, evaluating arguments of classmates, justifying their own choices
and coming to consensus within their teams.

Method
Six hundred and fifty students were surveyed in five different economics courses offered
between Fall 2011 and Fall 2015, totaling 18 different classes. All students surveyed worked
in a structured TBL environment taught by the same instructor at a large public university
in the United States. The courses included two lower division introductory microeconomic
theory courses (APEC 257 designed for natural science majors and ECON 211) and three
upper division courses with introductory-level prerequisites: Natural Resource Economics
(APEC 357), Environmental Economics (ECON 319) and Intermediate Microeconomic
Theory (ECON 314).
At the beginning of each semester of the study, a survey was administered to the stu-
dents eliciting their perceptions of how college classes develop the particular academic and
critical thinking skills shown in Table 1, as well as their opinions of the level of difficulty
and amount of work involved in these courses. Specifically, students were asked to rate the
extent to which they agreed that ‘the typical college course’ they have had developed or

Table 1. Academic and critical thinking skills assessed.

General academic skills
Individual responsibility for learning
Technical skills of the discipline
Written communication skills
Solving problems relevant to the course material
Critical thinking skills
Applying concepts and tools to real world situations
Interacting and communicating positively and productively with others
Developing an argument
Critically evaluating arguments of others
Drawing conclusions after researching a topic
Considering different points of view or different interpretations
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 5

enhanced each of these skills on a five-point Likert scale, with 1 indicating ‘strongly dis-
agree’, 2 ‘disagree’, 3 ‘neither agree nor disagree’, 4 ‘agree’ and 5 ‘strongly agree.’ At the end
of the semester, a similar survey was administered in which students were asked the extent
to which they agreed that ‘the use of team-based learning in this class’ developed or
enhanced the same academic and critical thinking skills, rated on the same scale. This
end-of-semester survey also asked students to compare the effectiveness of TBL to
lecture-based courses in improving these same skills. Demographic information collected
includes gender, age and class level, while academic information includes college credits
earned, grade point average, major and whether or not the student had a scholarship
that required maintaining a B (or better) grade point average.
The set of questions was designed to address the critical thinking skills thought to be
cultivated by the use of TBL in economics. These critical thinking skills are outlined by
the Delphi Report on critical thinking (Facione, 1999) and include interpretation, analysis,
evaluation, inference, explanation and self-regulation. Additionally, one question
addresses one of the descriptors of ‘a well cultivated critical thinker’, as expressed by
the Foundation for Critical Thinking, as one who ‘communicates effectively with others
in figuring out solutions to complex problems’ (Paul & Elder, 2006). Since critical thinking
skills are an ongoing process, any direct measurement is merely a snapshot in this process.
The assessment used here thus emphasizes development or enhancement of skills and
abilities in recognition of this process. Several control questions about general academic
skills that are not expected to be developed any more strongly in a TBL environment
than by using other methods are included as well.
The method employed allows indirect comparison of TBL to an average college course
through comparison of initial and end-of-semester responses to essentially the same ques-
tions, with the phrase ‘the use of team-based learning in this course’ in the final survey
replacing ‘the typical college course you’ve had’ in the initial survey. It also allows
direct assessment of students’ perceptions of how TBL compares to lecture-based
courses in development of these academic and critical thinking skills. Demographic and
academic data were collected on both surveys to determine if responses vary systematically
by any of these characteristics. However, individual identifiers were not used, so beginning
and end-of-semester surveys cannot be matched and compared on an individual basis.

Data
Demographic information from the end-of-semester surveys is summarized in Table 2,
disaggregated by course. The overall response rate was 90%. First semester freshmen, con-
stituting about 15% of the students in the two introductory courses, were excluded from
the beginning-of-semester survey as they had no prior college experience to rate, but
included in the end-of semester survey. There are no significant differences between the
average demographic composition of any of the classes at the beginning of the semester
compared to the end of the semester, in spite of students adding and dropping over the
course of the semester.
Close to a fifth of the introductory applied economics (APEC 257) students were fresh-
men, nearly half were sophomores and a fifth were juniors.2 Forty-seven percent of these
students were Wildlife and Fisheries Biology majors, 30% were Environment and Natural
Resources majors and no other major had more than seven students. The introductory
6 M. ESPEY

Table 2. Summary demographic information by course.

APEC 257 ECON 211 APEC 357 ECON 319 ECON 314
(N = 103) (N = 144) (N = 106) (N = 166) (N = 91)
Age 20 19 22 21 20
Male (%) 64 62 69 73 73
Female (%) 36 38 31 27 27
Freshman (%) 18 53 2 0 9
Sophomore (%) 47 29 22 5 42
Junior (%) 20 13 32 41 41
Senior (%) 15 4 44 54 9
GPA (4.0 scale) 3.15 2.99 3.07 3.16 3.26
Scholarship (%) 61 61 42 39 57

economics (ECON 211) students were predominantly freshmen (53%) and sophomores
(29%), 30% of whom were business or economics majors.
The gender balance in these introductory-level courses was similar, at close to 60% male
and 40% female, while 61% of the students in both courses had academic scholarships. In
contrast, APEC 257 students were somewhat older on average than ECON 211 students
(20 versus 19 years old), with a slightly higher grade point average (3.15 versus 2.99).
While most students in Natural Resource Economics (APEC 357) and Environmental
Economics (ECON 319) were upperclassmen, just over a fifth of the Natural Resource
Economics students were sophomores and 2% were freshmen, while only 5% of the
Environmental Economics students were sophomores and none were freshmen. This
difference is likely because the only prerequisite for the Natural Resource Economics is
introductory microeconomic theory while Environmental Economics requires intermedi-
ate microeconomic theory.

Analysis of results
TBL versus other college courses: overall student perceptions
General academic skills
As shown in Tables 3 and 4, on average, students did not rate TBL differently from the
typical course in terms of developing technical skills of the discipline or in development
of written communication skills. Interestingly, TBL was rated lower than the typical
college course in development of individual responsibility for learning, perhaps because
the focus is on learning through application in the classroom, rather than conveyance
of information through lecture. While TBL emphasizes individual responsibility to self
and team, the focus on in-class learning and activities may leave some students feeling
less burdened to learn outside of the classroom, giving the perception that less responsi-
bility for learning is left to the student. Finally, students in all five courses rated TBL sig-
nificantly more strongly in comparison to the typical college course in terms of enhancing
their ability to solve problems relevant to the course material.

Critical thinking skills

Students in all five courses rated TBL significantly higher in comparison to the typical
college course, in terms of enhancing their abilities in all of the critical thinking skills
except the ability to draw conclusions after researching a topic. As research was not
required for TBL activities in any of these classes, this was not of concern.
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 7

Table 3. ‘Typical’ college course versus TBL: lower division courses.

APEC 257 ECON 211
Typical
course TBL t-Statistics for Typical course TBL t-Statistics for
Skill (N = 92) (N = 103) difference (N = 130) (N = 144) difference
General
Responsibility 4.29 3.84 −4.67*** 4.31 3.96 −4.17***
Technical 3.92 3.94 0.17 3.95 4.04 1.04
Written 3.92 3.83 0.75 3.78 3.89 1.06
Solve problems 4.12 4.61 5.66*** 4.24 4.52 3.69***
Critical thinking
Apply concepts 3.83 4.25 3.70*** 3.81 4.33 5.72***
Interact/communicate 4.16 4.72 5.97*** 3.97 4.64 7.36***
Develop arguments 3.74 4.19 4.01*** 3.75 4.10 3.43***
Evaluate arguments 3.64 4.30 5.75*** 3.60 4.14 5.15***
Draw conclusions after 4.17 4.03 −1.37* 3.99 3.99 0.01
researching a topic
Consider different views 4.11 4.51 4.05*** 4.05 4.41 3.94***
*p < .1.
**p < .05.
***p < .01

Direct comparison of TBL to lecture-based courses: When students were asked to

directly compare TBL to lecture-based courses of the same level in developing the aca-
demic and critical thinking skills listed in Table 1, they were uniformly more positive
about TBL. A response of ‘1’ indicates that students felt TBL developed the academic
and critical thinking skills much less than lecture-based courses, ‘2’ somewhat less, ‘3’
about equally, ‘4’ somewhat more and ‘5’ much more. Every course average was statisti-
cally significantly above 3 at the 1% significance level for every skill. Notable also are
that ratings of the typical college course, TBL, and TBL compared to lecture-based
courses are relatively consistent across the classes surveyed. These results are shown
in Appendix 1.

Table 4. ‘Typical’ college course versus TBL: upper division courses.

APEC 357 ECON 319 ECON 314
Typical t-Statistics Typical t-Statistics Typical
t-Statistics
Skill course TBL for course
TBL for TBL course
for
(N = 119) (N = 106) difference (N = 190) (N = 166) difference (N = 120) (N = 91) difference
General
Responsibility 4.43 3.88 −4.91*** 4.32 3.95 −5.04*** 4.39 4.02 −4.11***
Technical 3.84 3.83 −0.11 3.92 3.95 −0.35 3.87 4.06 1.83**
Written 3.83 3.74 −0.94 3.79 3.68 −1.21 3.82 3.58 −2.06**
Solve problems 4.16 4.39 2.68*** 4.27 4.57 4.50*** 4.15 4.62 5.80***
Critical thinking
Apply concepts 3.89 4.23 3.60*** 3.84 4.31 5.98*** 3.71 4.35 6.61***
Interact/communicate 3.90 4.52 6.46*** 3.88 4.66 10.71*** 3.92 4.67 8.02***
Develop arguments 3.61 4.07 4.56*** 3.81 4.27 5.36*** 3.71 4.16 3.73***
Evaluate arguments 3.42 4.30 8.95*** 3.68 4.33 7.61*** 3.54 4.27 6.53***
Draw conclusions after 4.14 4.08 −0.69 4.12 4.01 −1.37 4.11 3.87 −2.23**
researching a topic
Consider different 3.95 4.46 5.60*** 4.21 4.52 4.20*** 4.08 4.46 3.88***
views
*p < .1.
**p < .05.
***p < .01.
8 M. ESPEY

Demographic analysis of student perceptions

To determine the role of demographics and academic ability in influencing student atti-
tudes about the impact of instruction on critical thinking skills, responses to each of the
survey statements were modeled using ordered probit regression, accounting for gender,
age, class level, grade point average and whether or not the student had an academic-
based scholarship. However, there were very few differences in perceptions of learning
gains from the typical college course, from TBL, or in comparison of TBL to lecture
related to class level, age, gender or academic ability.3
While there were few differences across demographic groups on individual survey ques-
tions, close inspection reveals that nearly all of these subgroups felt more strongly about
the positive impact of TBL, in comparison to other instructional formats, on their critical
thinking and academic skills. However, since survey responses were anonymous and not
individually coded, beginning and end-of-semester responses could not be paired, so it is
not possible to determine the significance of these differences between TBL and the
‘typical’ college course using regression analysis. Instead, categorical response averages
are reported for each question and statistically significant differences between the
typical course and TBL are noted. These results are shown in Tables A1–A3 in Appendix
2 broken down by males versus females, class level and grade point average, respectively.
Note that the number of students responding to each survey is not the same due to stu-
dents adding and dropping during the semester and first semester freshmen being
omitted from the beginning survey.
All subcategories of students analyzed expressed that TBL did less to develop individual
responsibility for learning than the typical college course. This result was unexpected, as
TBL is designed to make individuals responsible for preparation prior to class and holds
students accountable for this preparation through individual and team RATs and team
activities. However, TBL courses are designed not just to convey information to students
but require them to think about concepts and engage with the material during class time,
possibly requiring less time from students outside of class to make sense of and learn to
apply material presented than the typical class.
Seniors, sophomores and those in the highest GPA category indicated that TBL was
less effective at developing writing skills and at drawing conclusions after researching a
topic. One tenet of ‘good’ TBL activities is that they do not require substantial writing
or outside work, but focus instead on tasks that require input from all team members
and cannot be subdivided and delegated to different individuals. Hence, these results are
not surprising or concerning in terms of TBL as a teaching strategy. Writing and
research were also not a strong focus of any of these courses, with policy analysis
papers required in two of the upper division courses, but little substantive writing
beyond that. Furthermore, these writing assignments were the responsibility of individ-
uals, not part of TBL. Oddly though, freshmen were more positive about the develop-
ment of their writing skills, although they typically only had one semester of courses
with which to compare.
In terms of the other general academic skills, only males, freshmen and those with a
GPA between 3.5 and 4.0 expressed a significant difference (at 5% or better) between
the typical course and TBL in terms of developing the technical skills of the discipline,
rating TBL somewhat higher in this area, but every group of students expressed a
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 9

statistically significantly higher positive impact of TBL on their ability to solve problems
relevant to the course material relative to the typical course.
Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, every subgroup rated TBL statistically sig-
nificantly higher than the typical college course in terms of every critical thinking skill
assessed except the ability to draw conclusions after researching a topic. As just men-
tioned, research was not a requirement for any of the team-based activities, so this
result was not surprising or of particular concern.
Analysis of responses regarding critical thinking skills by grade point average provides
some interesting results. While all groups were more positive about TBL than the typical
course in enhancing or developing critical thinking skills (other than drawing conclusions
based on research), students with GPAs above 3.0 tend to be more positive about how
much TBL enhances their critical thinking skills than students with GPA below 3.0.
Most striking is that students in the highest GPA category, 3.5–4.0, were more positive
about TBL than any other group in terms of improving their abilities to develop and evalu-
ate arguments and to interact and communicate positively and productively with others.
These findings are particularly interesting because TBL is often thought to be best at
pulling up the less academically successful students while still challenging the more aca-
demically successful students. It is more difficult to find significant impact on learning
among students with a higher GPA, as there is not as much improvement possible for
A or even B students as there is for C, D or F students. Top students are likely to do
well in a course regardless of course structure or teaching format. However, top students
are not likely to develop their critical thinking skills similarly across courses, and this study
finds that students feel that TBL enhances critical thinking skills significantly more than
the typical college course for students of all levels of academic success.
These findings are reinforced by the results of the direct comparison of TBL to lecture-
based courses at the same level. A response of ‘3’ indicates that students feel TBL devel-
oped these skills equally as well as lecture-based courses. TBL was rated significantly
higher than lecture-based courses for every academic and critical thinking skill inquired
about for every subgroup of student analyzed. The smallest differences were for the
general academic skills and for drawing conclusions after researching a topic while the
largest differences were generally consistent with the largest differences shown in Tables
A1–A3 in Appendix 2. The results of the direct comparison of TBL to lecture-based
courses by demographic groups are presented in Tables A4 and A5.

Discussion and conclusions

Development of critical thinking skills is a primary goal of higher education. With an
increasingly complex, global and information-based society, it is essential that students
learn to distinguish among sources and compare and evaluate different types of infor-
mation. The ability to draw conclusions and effectively communicate ideas to others is
just as important. Active learning techniques engage students with each other and with
course material and are generally thought to promote critical thinking more than lectur-
ing, but few researchers have attempted to measure improvements in critical thinking, or
even students’ perceptions of improved thinking. This study finds that students feel that
TBL significantly enhances specific critical thinking skills in comparison to the ‘typical’
college course, and even more so in comparison specifically to lecture-based courses.
10 M. ESPEY

TBL, like other forms of collaborative learning, forces students to engage with material,
grapple with new concepts and applications on their own, work through common miscon-
ceptions about material together, formulate arguments to support their understanding and
learn to judge alternative explanations. As with PBL, TBL focuses on students learning
subject matter in context while developing critical thinking skills through the instructional
learning process. This research supports the empirical evidence in the PBL literature
showing interactive problem solving effective at teaching both domain knowledge and
critical thinking (Kek & Huijser, 2011; Sendag & Odabasi, 2009; Tiwari, Lai, So, &
Yuen, 2006; Yuan, Kunaviktikul, Klunklin, & Williams, 2008).
TBL is a highly structured form of collaborative learning. Previous researchers have
found that gains accruing from collaborative learning are associated with learning struc-
tures that promote interaction and encourage both individual and group achievement
(Barkley, Cross, & Major, 2005; Kim et al., 2013). Discussion, a foundation of TBL,
forces students to confront alternative viewpoints, leading to deeper learning and
improved communication (Hansen & Salemi, 1990). However, as opposed to many
group activities and discussions, TBL allows time to build team dynamics and trust and
minimizes free-riding. In analyzing students’ own perceptions of improvements in
various aspects in 18 different TBL classes, this study finds perceived improvements in
both academic skills and critical thinking skills significantly greater than in other
college courses, supporting previous research on both active and collaborative learning.
Instructors interested in implementing effective team or collaborative learning into
their classes should take care to learn best practices in implementation of such activities
to minimize opportunity for free-riding and maximize opportunity for true collaborative
and student-centered learning. Carefully designed activities that generate desired learning
are critical to success and not always easy to create.4 Application of material and collab-
oration within teams must be an integral component of the class, not tacked on to the end
of a unit, done intermittently or undertaken only outside of class time, as with many
‘group’ assignments. As Heijltjes et al. (2014) found, practice is the key. Focusing on
the impact of critical thinking instruction prior to task performance, Heijltjes et al.
found that participants who received explicit critical thinking instruction outperformed
those who did not but only on tasks they had also practiced. They nonetheless conclude
that economics educators who wish to enhance their students’ critical thinking skills can
do so through ‘relatively simple’ explicit critical thinking instructions. In contrast, the
results of this study suggest that such instruction is not necessary to produce gains; prac-
tice without instruction, in a collaborative and student-centered learning environment,
can also produce significant gains.
TBL sharpens critical thinking skills through peer feedback without imposing an exces-
sive grading burden or need for continuous instructor feedback, as students provide feed-
back to each other. Discussion also changes the focus of the learning process from the
single view of the instructor to the diversity of views within a group of students.
However, thoughtful effort and time must be put into designing activities to stimulate pro-
ductive discussion and generate the desired learning. Improved outcomes, particularly in
terms of critical thinking skills and experience working in teams, should make students
more employable upon graduation. Employers consistently rank communication skills,
the ability to work with others, and critical thinking as highly valued characteristics of
potential employees (NACE, 2014).
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 11

TBL enhances all of these abilities in students by requiring extensive interpersonal com-
munication, problem solving in class, coordination on reporting of outcomes including
short written explanations and consensus building. Qualitative research could help ident-
ify particular aspects of these methods that most enhance students’ learning and critical
thinking skill development. Furthermore, observational study could identify differential
impacts among students in relation to their level of participation, communication with
teammates or even engagement by their teammates, perhaps providing insight into the
mechanism by which TBL and collaborative learning improve critical thinking skills.
Regardless, faculty interested in teaching strategies that enhance professional competen-
cies of interpersonal communication skills, teamwork and critical thinking should
explore team-based and other collaborative learning methods.

Notes
1. For more examples, see Sweet and Michaelsen (2012).
2. Freshmen are first-year college students, sophomores second year, juniors third year, seniors
fourth year.
3. Complete regression results are available upon request.
4. For more information, see www.teambasedleanring.org.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

References
Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A, Tamim, R., & Zhang, D.
(2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1
meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1102–1134.
Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2010). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Barkley, E. F., Cross, K. P., & Major, C. H. (2005). Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for
college faculty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Davies, M. (2013). Critical thinking and the disciplines reconsidered. Higher Education Research &
Development, 32(4), 529–544.
Eagan, M. K., Stolzenberg, E. B., Berdan Lozano, J., Aragon, M. C., Suchard, M. R., & Hurtado, S.
(2014). Undergraduate teaching faculty: The 2013–2014 HERI faculty survey. Los Angeles, CA:
Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.
Facione, P. A. (1999). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational
assessment and instruction. Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
Fitzgerald, J. T., Gruppen, L. D., & White, C. B. (2000). The influence of task formats on the accu-
racy of medical students’ self-assessments . Academic Medicine, 75(7), 737–741.
Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhancing critical thinking. Journal of Technology
Education, 7(1). doi:10.21061/jte.v7i1.a.2
Halpern, D. F. (2003). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking (4th ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hansen, W. L., & Salemi, M. K. (1990). Improving classroom discussion in economics courses. In
P. Saunders & W. B. Walstad (Eds.), The principles of economics course: A handbook for instruc-
tors (pp. 96–110). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
12 M. ESPEY

Hart Research Associates. (2013). It takes more than a major: Employer priorities for college learning
and student success. Liberal Education, 99(2). Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/publications-
research/periodicals/it-takes-more-major-employer-priorities-college-learning-and
Hawkins, D. (2014). A team-based learning guide for faculty in the health professions. Bloomington,
IN: AuthorHouse.
Heijltjes, A., Van Gog, T., Leppink, J., & Paas, F. (2014). Improving critical thinking: Effects of dis-
positions and instructions on economics students’ reasoning skills. Learning and Instruction, 29,
31–42.
Hinton, H. (1993). Reliability and validity of student evaluations: Testing models versus survey
research models. PS: Political Science & Politics, 26, 562–569.
Kek, M. Y. C. A., & Huijser, H. (2011). The power of problem-based learning in developing critical
thinking skills: Preparing students for tomorrow’s digital futures in today’s classrooms. Higher
Education Research & Development, 30(3), 329–341.
Kim, K., Sharma, P., Land, S. M., & Furlong, K. P. (2013). Effects of active learning on enhancing
student critical thinking in an undergraduate general science course. Innovative Higher
Education, 38(3), 223–235.
Korn, M. (2014, October 21). Bosses seek ‘critical thinking,’ but what is that? The Wall Street
Journal.
McInerney, M. J., & Fink, L. D. (2003). Team-based learning enhances long-term retention and criti-
cal thinking in an undergraduate microbial physiology course. Microbiology Education, 4, 3–12.
Michaelsen, L. K., Knight, A. B., & Fink, L. D. (2002). Team-based learning: A transformative use of
small groups. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Moore, T. (2004). The critical thinking debate: How general are general thinking skills? Higher
Education Research & Development, 23(1), 3–18.
National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2014). Job outlook 2014. Bethlehem, PA: Author.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2006). The miniature guide to critical thinking: Concepts and tools, fourth
edition. Dillon Beach, CA: The Foundation for Critical Thinking.
Pepper, C. (2010). ‘There’s a lot of learning going on but NOT much teaching!’: Student perceptions
of problem-based learning in science. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(6),
693–707.
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering
Education, 93(3), 223–231.
Ross, J. A. (2006). The reliability, validity, and utility of self-assessment. Practical Assessment,
Research, and Evaluation, 11(10), 1–13.
Sendag, S., & Odabasi, H. F. (2009). Effects of an online problem-based learning course on content
knowledge acquisition and critical thinking skills. Computers and Education, 53, 132–141.
Shin, H., Sok, S., Hyun, K. S., & Kim, M. J. (2014). Competency and an active learning program in
undergraduate nursing education. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 73(3), 591–598.
Society for Human Resource Management & WSJ.com/Careers (2008, June). Critical skills needs
and resources for the changing workforce: Keeping skills competitive. Alexandria, VA: Society
for Human Resource Management.
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
Publishing.
Tiwari, A., Lai, P., So, M., & Yuen, K. (2006). A comparison of the effects of problem based
learning and lecturing on the development of students’ critical thinking. Medical Education,
40(6), 547–554.
Yuan, H., Kunaviktikul, W., Klunklin, A., & Williams, B. A. (2008). Improvement of nursing stu-
dents’ critical thinking skills through problem-based learning in the People’s Republic of China:
A quasi-experimental study. Nursing and Health Sciences, 10(1), 70–76.
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 13

Appendices

Appendix 1. TBL versus lecture-based course

APEC 257 ECON 211 APEC 357 ECON 319 ECON 314
Skill (N = 103) (N = 144) (N = 106) (N = 166) (N = 89)
General
Responsibility 3.48 3.66 3.30 3.49 3.52
(0.08) (0.08) (0.08) (0.08) (0.10)
Technical 3.73 3.79 3.79 3.66 3.85
(0.08) (0.06) (0.08) (0.06) (0.09)
Written 3.68 3.64 3.62 3.43 3.42
(0.08) (0.07) (0.08) (0.06) (0.09)
Solve problems 4.24 4.27 4.11 4.04 4.21
(0.07) (0.06) (0.08) (0.06) (0.08)
Critical thinking
Apply concepts 4.12 4.20 4.04 4.02 4.07
(0.08) (0.06) (0.08) (0.06) (0.08)
Interact/communicate 4.49 4.52 4.60 4.44 4.68
(0.08) (0.06) (0.07) (0.07) (0.07)
Develop arguments 4.08 4.14 4.01 3.99 4.16
(0.08) (0.07) (0.09) (0.06) (0.09)
Evaluate arguments 4.23 4.23 4.32 4.21 4.30
(0.09) (0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (0.09)
Draw conclusions 3.80 3.90 3.74 3.74 3.74
(0.09) (0.07) (0.08) (0.06) (0.09)
Consider different views 4.26 4.31 4.40 4.23 4.47
(0.09) (0.06) (0.07) (0.06) (0.07)
Notes: Standard errors are in parentheses. All values are statistically significantly different from ‘3’, the value that indicates
TBL is about equal to lecture, at the 1% level.

Appendix 2. Student perceptions by demographic group

Table A1. ‘Typical’ college course versus TBL by gender.

Male Female
Typical course TBL t-Statistic for Typical course TBL t-Statistic for
Skill N = 446 N = 414 difference N = 204 N = 195 difference
General
Responsibility 4.29 3.92 −8.25*** 4.42 3.95 −6.44***
Technical 3.89 3.98 2.02** 3.94 3.92 −0.24
Written 3.79 3.73 −1.10 3.88 3.80 −0.98
Solve problems 4.20 4.56 8.54*** 4.20 4.50 4.82***
Critical thinking
Apply concepts 3.80 4.31 10.13*** 3.85 4.28 5.76***
Interact/communicate 3.90 4.64 15.59*** 4.06 4.63 8.22***
Develop arguments 3.74 4.19 8.15*** 3.72 4.12 4.70***
Evaluate arguments 3.59 4.26 12.49*** 3.61 4.28 8.17***
Draw conclusions after 4.09 4.00 −1.78** 4.13 4.01 −1.69**
researching a topic
Consider different views 4.07 4.48 8.62*** 4.13 4.45 4.33***
*p < .1.
**p < .05.
***p < .01.
14 M. ESPEY

Table A2. ‘Typical’ college course versus TBL by class level.

Freshmen Sophomores Juniors Seniors
Typical Typical Typical Typical
course TBL course TBL course TBL course TBL
N= t-Stat. N= N= t-Stat. N= N= t-Stat. N= N= t-Stat.
Skill N = 63 105 for diff. 181 160 for diff. 223 179 for diff. 184 165 for diff.
General
Q1 4.32 4.01 −2.60*** 4.31 3.86 −5.91*** 4.34 3.94 −6.23*** 4.34 3.93 −5.45***
Q2 3.87 4.10 2.10** 3.83 3.84 0.10 3.94 3.96 −0.21 3.93 4.00 0.95
Q3 3.49 3.92 3.06*** 3.79 3.62 −1.83* 3.85 3.75 −1.25 3.92 3.77 −1.70*
Q4 4.25 4.62 3.68*** 4.14 4.53 5.94*** 4.20 4.53 5.52*** 4.24 4.50 3.87***
Critical thinking
Q5 3.78 4.44 6.14*** 3.74 4.24 5.93*** 3.85 4.30 6.34*** 3.86 4.27 4.95***
Q6 3.71 4.77 8.87*** 3.98 4.57 7.49*** 3.97 4.60 8.74*** 3.95 4.67 10.17***
Q7 3.75 4.17 3.04*** 3.67 4.09 4.50*** 3.72 4.22 6.43*** 3.81 4.18 4.35***
Q8 3.56 4.21 4.58*** 3.49 4.18 7.96*** 3.60 4.33 9.62*** 3.66 4.32 7.43***
Q9 3.94 4.10 1.20 4.06 3.88 −2.11** 4.03 3.97 −0.79 4.30 4.10 −2.65***
Q10 3.92 4.51 4.98*** 4.06 4.39 4.17*** 4.08 4.47 5.41*** 4.20 4.55 4.78***
Note: Q1, responsibility; Q2, technical; Q3, written; Q4, solve problems; Q5, apply concepts; Q6, interact/communicate; Q7,
develop arguments; Q8, evaluate arguments; Q9, draw conclusions after researching a topic; Q10, consider different
views.
*p < .1.
**p < .05.
***p < .01.

Table A3. ‘Typical’ college course versus TBL by grade point average.
Below 2.5 2.50–2.99 3.0–3.49 3.5–4.0
Typical Typical Typical Typical
course TBL course TBL course TBL course TBL
N= t-Stat. for N= t-Stat. for N= t-Stat. for N= t-Stat. for
Skill N = 70 48 diff. N = 131 129 diff. N = 263 227 diff. N = 149 130 diff.
General
Q1 4.21 4.04 −1.52 4.38 3.98 −5.30*** 4.35 3.91 −7.10*** 4.33 3.90 −4.79***
Q2 3.87 4.08 1.72* 3.98 3.94 −0.48 3.91 3.91 −0.05 3.85 4.02 2.07**
Q3 3.69 4.04 2.52*** 3.91 3.77 −1.41 3.86 3.74 −1.46 3.78 3.58 −1.99**
Q4 4.25 4.60 3.44*** 4.14 4.47 4.02*** 4.18 4.53 6.16*** 4.28 4.59 4.79***
Critical thinking
Q5 3.74 4.33 4.67*** 3.82 4.17 3.82*** 3.82 4.30 7.18*** 3.79 4.36 6.56***
Q6 3.93 4.58 5.04*** 4.10 4.63 5.89*** 3.97 4.59 9.91*** 3.80 4.70 11.27***
Q7 3.70 4.10 2.92** 3.78 4.08 2.92*** 3.75 4.20 6.18*** 3.68 4.27 6.11***
Q8 3.52 4.21 4.17*** 3.68 4.20 5.43*** 3.58 4.31 10.26*** 3.52 4.35 8.51***
Q9 4.07 4.08 0.07 4.18 3.94 −2.51*** 4.08 4.04 −0.60 4.12 3.82 −3.10***
Q10 3.97 4.40 2.84** 4.18 4.40 2.55** 4.09 4.53 7.25*** 4.09 4.47 4.33***
Note: Q1, responsibility; Q2, technical; Q3, written; Q4, solve problems; Q5, apply concepts; Q6, interact/communicate; Q7,
develop arguments; Q8, evaluate arguments; Q9, draw conclusions after researching a topic; Q10, consider different
views.
*p < .1.
**p < .05.
***p < .01.
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 15

Table A4. TBL versus lecture-based course by gender and grade level.
Male Female Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior
Skill (N = 413) (N = 195) (N = 105) (N = 160) (N = 179) (N = 165)
General
Responsibility 3.46 3.56 3.67 3.41 3.48 3.46
(0.05) (0.07) (0.09) (0.07) (0.07) (0.07)
Technical 3.71 3.73 3.86 3.66 3.70 3.70
(0.04) (0.06) (0.08) (0.06) (0.06) (0.06)
Written 3.55 3.48 3.66 3.46 3.53 3.51
(0.04) (0.06) (0.08) (0.07) (0.06) (0.06)
Solve problems 4.15 4.13 4.36 4.19 4.05 4.06
(0.04) (0.06) (0.07) (0.06) (0.06) (0.06)
Critical thinking
Apply concepts 4.05 4.08 4.31 4.09 4.00 3.94
(0.04) (0.06) (0.08) (0.06) (0.06) (0.06)
Interact/communicate 4.50 4.49 4.57 4.46 4.54 4.45
(0.04) (0.06) (0.08) (0.07) (0.05) (0.06)
Develop arguments 4.06 4.05 4.16 3.97 4.09 4.03
(0.04) (0.06) (0.09) (0.07) (0.06) (0.07)
Evaluate arguments 4.23 4.21 4.26 4.16 4.23 4.27
(0.04) (0.06) (0.09) (0.07) (0.06) (0.06)
Draw conclusions 3.79 3.76 3.86 3.78 3.76 3.76
(0.04) (0.06) (0.08) (0.06) (0.07) (0.07)
Consider different views 4.30 4.28 4.36 4.28 4.23 4.32
(0.04) (0.06) (0.08) (0.07) (0.06) (0.06)
Notes: Standard errors are in parentheses. All values are statistically significantly different from ‘3’ at the 1% level.

Table A5. TBL versus lecture-based course by grade point average.

Below 2.5 2.50–2.99 3.0–3.49 3.5–4.0
Skill (N = 48) (N = 129) (N = 227) (N = 130)
General
Responsibility 3.68 3.45 3.54 3.34
(0.11) (0.08) (0.06) (0.08)
Technical 3.85 3.70 3.68 3.75
(0.11) (0.06) (0.05) (0.07)
Written 3.79 3.54 3.57 3.36
(0.11) (0.07) (0.06) (0.07)
Solve problems 4.39 4.09 4.14 4.03
(0.08) (0.07) (0.05) (0.07)
Critical thinking
Apply concepts 4.21 3.97 4.08 3.99
(0.09) (0.07) (0.05) (0.07)
Interact/communicate 4.62 4.43 4.49 4.61
(0.08) (0.07) (0.05) (0.06)
Develop arguments 4.09 3.98 4.04 4.13
(0.12) (0.07) (0.06) (0.06)
Evaluate arguments 4.28 4.20 4.21 4.30
(0.11) (0.07) (0.06) (0.07)
Draw conclusions 4.04 3.73 3.80 3.62
(0.11) (0.08) (0.06) (0.07)
Consider different views 4.34 4.20 4.26 4.42
(0.10) (0.07) (0.05) (0.06)
Notes: Standard errors are in parentheses. All values are statistically significantly different from ‘3’ at the 1% level.