Research shows that 96% of educators agreed that team-based learning is more effective in promoting knowledge retention than lectures.
By emphasizing structured teamwork, accountability, and application of knowledge, TBL has become an increasingly popular active learning methodology implemented across various disciplines.
Yet, misconceptions can still discourage educators from adopting this approach.
This July, members of InteDashboard TBL Community came together for an open discussion—guided by Dr. Sandy Cook, Dr. Neal Carter, and Tom Jansen—to discuss the most common misconceptions about TBL, reflect on experiences from diverse classrooms, and share practical ways to address them.
One of the most frequent concerns is that TBL takes far longer to design and run than a lecture. It is true that the first implementation requires thoughtful preparation. Crafting readiness assurance tests and application exercises that align with course objectives can be time-intensive.
However, this effort should be seen as an investment rather than a recurring burden. Once the materials are created, they can be reused and refined year after year.
A practical way to manage the initial workload is to build a facilitator guide that includes learning objectives, prompts, and any other materials for your class. This creates a reusable resource that reduces preparation in future semesters and makes it easier for colleagues to adopt TBL.
Another approach our community of TBL educators share is to set up an oversight team that coordinates TBL across courses, so materials and responsibilities are shared rather than left to individual instructors.
Many instructors report that the time they spend reworking lectures every semester is drastically reduced once TBL modules are established. This makes TBL not only sustainable but more efficient than lecture-heavy approaches.
A persistent myth is that TBL is merely another form of group work. On the surface, both involve students working together, but the resemblance ends there.
Traditional group projects often fall into a divide-and-conquer model: tasks are split among members, completed individually, and assembled at the last minute. Accountability is limited, and collaboration can be shallow.
TBL, in contrast, is highly structured. It is anchored in four key elements—preparation, readiness assurance, application exercises, and peer evaluation—which ensure consistent accountability and deeper engagement.
In TBL, teams are strategically formed and remain intact throughout a course, enabling trust, cohesion, and shared responsibility—unlike the ad-hoc groups of traditional projects. These elements combine to make TBL a fundamentally different, more effective approach to collaborative learning.
Another concern is that students would rather sit through lectures than participate in active, team-based learning.
Many students once saw lectures as the default, but this perception is shifting. Increasingly, learners ask for recorded lectures they can watch at their own pace, while valuing class time for application of knowledge.
TBL aligns with this change by assigning prework that students complete individually before class, ensuring they arrive prepared. Class time is then used more purposefully—focused on dialogue, teamwork, and application rather than passive note-taking.
Students develop critical thinking, communication, and problem-solving skills in TBL classes that lectures rarely provide.
In case of initial resistance, one effective way to address it is to frame TBL as preparation for the real-world decision-making students will face in their careers. By emphasizing that students are practicing teamwork, judgment, and problem-solving in a safe classroom environment, instructors can help learners understand the long-term value of TBL beyond the classroom.
Research and classroom experiences show that once students experience the benefits of active participation, their preference shifts. Students report higher engagement, stronger recall, and an overall preference for TBL after experiencing it compared to traditional lectures.
Some assume that TBL only works in medical education or face-to-face classrooms. In practice, it has been successfully implemented across disciplines—from the social sciences to professional training—and adapted for online and hybrid delivery.
With the right adjustments, such as streamlined preparatory work, asynchronous readiness assurance tests, and focused live sessions, TBL can be highly effective even for adult learners balancing professional responsibilities.
Moreover, digital platforms, like InteDashboard, have made it possible to conduct TBL in different modalities. Being purpose-built for TBL, InteDashboard makes it possible to run the complete TBL process in-person, online, or hybrid without losing structure or engagement.
Faculty can save time with automated grading of iRATs, tRATs, and applications. Real-time data analytics help identify and address students’ learning gaps immediately. Finally, the seamless integration with different learning management systems (LMS) ensures even more effortless experience with existing setup.
By addressing these misconceptions, a clearer picture of TBL emerges. It is not a quick fix, nor a rebranding of group projects. It is a framework that, when implemented thoughtfully, helps students learn how to think, apply knowledge, and collaborate in meaningful ways.
The evidence and experiences of countless practitioners show that the strength of TBL lies in its adaptability, its ability to engage students at a deeper level, and its focus on preparing learners for the complex decision-making they will face in the workforce.
To explore more, join the conversation in our TBL Community Forum and exchange insights with fellow educators.
Hear directly from students—explore our Student Voices in TBL Essay Compilation.