Jumpstarting Team Cohesion with Team Activity Debriefings

  • Laura MadsonEmail author
  • Christopher M. Burns
Short Communication


Although peer evaluations are essential to team-based learning, they can be problematic. Team activity debriefings (TAD) are advantageous because they focus on the team’s problem-solving strategies and teamwork skills. Students (N = 100) who used both tools reported that TADs were more helpful in developing team cohesion, helping students understand the characteristics of well-functioning teams, and helping students work better as a team. Peer evaluations were more helpful in evaluating and improving their own contributions to the team. Using both tools may be the best way to foster teamwork skills and hold students accountable for making positive contributions to the team.


Team-based learning Peer evaluation Team cohesion Feedback 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the New Mexico State University Institutional Review Board (reference number 17078) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Lane DR. Peer feedback processes and individual accountability in team-based learning. In: Sweet M, Michaelsen LK, editors. Team-based learning in the social sciences and humanities: Group Work That Works to Generate Critical Thinking and Engagement. Sterling: Stylus Publishing; 2012. p. 51–64.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sweet M, Pelton-Sweet LM. The social foundation of team-based learning: students accountable to students. In: Michaelsen LK, Parmelee DX, Sweet M, editors. Team-based learning: small group learning’s next big step. New Directions for Teaching and Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2009. p. 29–40.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sibley J, Ostafichuk P. Getting started with team-based learning. First ed. Sterling: Stylus Publishing; 2014.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cestone CM, Levine RE, Lane DR. Peer assessment and evaluation in team-based learning. In: Michaelsen LK, Parmelee DX, Sweet M, editors. Team-based learning: small group learning’s next big step. New Directions for Teaching and Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2009. p. 69–78.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Levine RE. Peer evaluation in team-based learning. In: Michaelsen LK, Parmelee DX, McMahon KK, Levine RE, editors. Team-based learning for health professions education: a guide to using small groups for improving learning. Sterling: Stylus Publishing; 2008. p. 103–16.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Michaelsen LK, Fink LD. Calculating peer evaluation scores. In: Michaelsen LK, Knight AB, Fink LD, editors. Team-based learning: a transformative use of small groups in college teaching. Sterling: Stylus Publishing; 2004. p. 229–40.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goedde R, Sibley J. Approaches to peer evaluation: Pro’s and cons of various methods. Presented at the: Team-Based Learning Collaborative Annual Meeting; February 22, 2011; Las Vegas, NM. Accessed April 22, 2019.
  8. 8.
    Levine RE, Kelly PA, Karakoc T, Haidet P. Peer evaluation in a clinical clerkship: students’ attitudes, experiences, and correlations with traditional assessments. Acad Psychiatry. 2007;31(1):19–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Parmelee D, DeStephen D, Borges NJ. Medical students’ attitudes about team-based learning in a pre-clinical curriculum. Med Educ Online. 2009;14(1):4503. Scholar
  10. 10.
    Michaelsen LK, Schultheiss EE. Making feedback helpful. J Manag Educ. 1989;13(1):109–13. Scholar
  11. 11.
    Allen JA, Reiter-Palmon R, Crowe J, Scott C. Debriefs: teams learning from doing in context. Am Psychol. 2018;73(4):504–16. Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tannenbaum SI, Cerasoli CP. Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis. Hum Factors. 2013;55(1):231–45. Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tannenbaum SI, Goldhaber-Fiebert SN. Medical team debriefs: simple, powerful, underutilized. In: Frush K, Salas E, editors. Improving patient safety through teamwork and team training. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012. p. 249–53.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen W, McCollum MA, Bradley EB, Nathan BR, Chen DT, Worden MK. Using instrument-guided team reflection and debriefing to cultivate teamwork knowledge, skills, and attitudes in pre-clerkship learning teams. Med Sci Educ. 2019;29(1):45–50. Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boet S, Bould MD, Sharma B, Revees S, Naik VN, Triby E, et al. Within-team debriefing versus instructor-led debriefing for simulation-based education: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2013;258(1):53–8. Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eddy ER, Tannenbaum SI, Mathieu JE. Helping teams to help themselves: comparing two team-led debriefing methods. Pers Psychol. 2013;66(4):975–1008. Scholar
  17. 17.
    Barker LL, Wahlers KJ, Watson KW. Groups in process: an introduction to small group communication. 6th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 2001.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Debriefs: a powerful tool for enhancing team effectiveness. Albany, NY: Group for Organizational Effectiveness, Inc.; 2011.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Saywer T, Eppich W, Brett-Fleegler M, Grant V, Cheng A. More than one way to debrief: a critical review of healthcare simulation debriefing methods. Simul Healthc. 2016;11:209–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association of Medical Science Educators 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyNew Mexico State UniversityLas CrucesUSA
  2. 2.Biomedical Education Department, College of Osteopathic MedicineCalifornia Health Sciences UniversityClovisUSA

Personalised recommendations