Despite best intentions and deliberate attention to team dynamics, TBL teams will encounter challenges. Participation may become uneven, different working styles may create friction, or teams may struggle to address problems on their own.
The educator’s role is not necessarily to step in with the answer. With limited support from educators, teams can learn to examine what is happening, identify what they want to change, and take greater ownership of how they work together.
Two practices can help: coaching teams through challenges using the GROW framework and creating dedicated time to reflect on the team process.
Coach the Team with the GROW Framework
When a team is struggling, the educator’s instinct may be to diagnose the problem and tell students how to fix it.
Coaching takes a different approach: the coach creates the structure for the conversation, but the team owns the problem and the solution.
The GROW framework provides four stages:
Goal
Establish what the team wants to achieve—clearly, positively, and with shared buy-in.
Before moving forward, make sure this is a goal the whole team genuinely cares about. Reframe the goal positively: Instead of “we want to argue less,” for example, ask what the team wants more of. What would successful teamwork actually look like for this team? Have the team describe why this goal is important to harness motivation to make the change.
Reality
Examine the current situation honestly—what is happening, what has been tried, and what is getting in the way.
Teams often jump from identifying a problem straight to proposing solutions. Slow the conversation down. Ask what is already working as well as what is not, and listen for assumptions, blame, or obstacles the team has not yet examined.
Options
Generate a range of possible actions before choosing one.
Encourage the team to produce several possibilities rather than settling on the first obvious idea. Ask: What else could you try? At this stage, the aim is to generate options—not judge them.
Will Do/Way Forward
Commit to a specific action: what the team will do, by when, and how they will know it is working.
“We’ll communicate better” is not yet an action plan. The team might instead agree to a five-minute check-in at the beginning of each session, for example. Support the team to make the plan Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Timely (SMART), confirm that every member is genuinely on board, and agree when the team will review how it is working.
GROW is not intended to be a rigid script, but a helpful approach to linking the actions to the team’s stated goal. What matters is that the solution comes from the team rather than being imposed upon it externally.
Make Time to Work on the Team—Not Just the Task
Once a course becomes busy, teams naturally focus on completing tRATs, application exercises, and other academic work. Team processes can easily disappear from the agenda.
At Duke-NUS, we have used structured team coaching to make room for that reflection. An initial coaching conversation may take place around six to eight weeks after team formation, when students have enough shared experience to discuss what is actually working and not working.
Not every course can dedicate time for a full coaching session. Scheduling even 10–15 minutes of curricular time periodically for teams to discuss what is working, what needs attention, and what they want to change can be valuable.
Over time, the aim is for teams to become increasingly able to coach themselves.
Want to strengthen your teams before challenges arise?
Read Part 1 for practical ways to help TBL teams understand team development, build trust, and establish clear expectations from the start.
