Thanks for your insights Jim. I understand the classifications of small-group learning that L. Dee Fink defined: informal, cooperative, collaborative, team [With apologies. I have experience with other team models besides TBL, so I have difficulty giving TBL its own classification; so, I'll just call it "team", which includes models like TBL, the Phoenix Learning Team model, work teams, etc.]. I understand how each model has dedicated followers; but, I tend to take an contextual approach; I think developing understanding and competency in different models helps us to align practices with context; and, that our practices must be flexible enough to adapt to a continuously changing context and to keep students engaged. I think you are correct about the different products produced by TBL teams and Phoenix learning teams. TBL uses RATs to enhance individual accountability for team projects. I find this works well when converting a traditional classroom to more interdependent processes. However, Phoenix is a university for adult working professionals who typically have extensive real-world experience. Although I have experimented with using the RAT as one of my tools in an adult classroom, not too many adult professionals have experience with RATs in the workplace. Most are familiar with the work team processes upon which the Phoenix model is based. You are absolutely correct how the Ringlemann effect drains group effectiveness. While TBL uses RATs and direct observation to combat social loafing, Phoenix learning teams establish a charter, submit team evaluations for each project (not just at the end of the course), keep logs of their activities, and are coached by the faculty. Following a fundamental concept of organizational psychology for reversing social loafing, students who do not participate in a project are supposed to be recognized and rewarded accordingly. In other words, no contribution means no team grade. I cannot speak directly to a situation that you heard about from someone else; but, situations in which a social loafer successfully passes through the efforts of others typically have one of two sources at Phoenix: the faculty is failing to follow the program or the students are failing to hold the faculty accountable through their chartering process. Sometimes it can be a combination of slacking faculty and slacking teams. Either way, it should be an exception; I am glad to hear that it was "one course" out of many the student had. Another thing to consider is that the team grades typically represent 30% of the individual student score. Theoretically, a student could bail on all of the team assignments and still earn a C- if he or she earned perfect scores on individual projects. I have never seen this happen; students who bail on team assignments typically have other issues that contribute to an unsatisfactory grade. In your friend's case, the typical Phoenix course is built on a scale of 100; so, losing 10% likely meant that the social loafer dropped an entire grade for not contributing to that team project. An area where you will find similarity between the Phoenix team learning model and TBL is in your point about how a team's focus is to solve problems. Phoenix goes beyond having the students solve theoretical problems to having the students apply the course concepts to solve actual problems in the workplace, their homes, and the community. They still use the same textbooks as other universities; but, the Phoenix students have the added benefit of a real-world environment in which to apply learning. They aren’t preparing for real-world, they’re living it. Also like TBL, the Phoenix learning team model facilitates student development through feedback; but, the feedback mechanisms go beyond scratch-off cards. The Phoenix system is built on a dynamical system theory model that succeeds by integrating multiple developmental feedback loops throughout the individual, team, and classroom level. Individuals contract to develop their teams, teams contract to develop the individuals, and faculty facilitates team activities to develop the entire class. Individuals, teams, and class also participate in the mutual evaluation process. For example, while a team is giving a presentation they are expected to help teach the material by directly applying it to solve a practical problem and present their solution to the class. The other teams act as an "executive team" whose job it is to evaluate the presentations, ask questions, and offer feedback. Regarding TBL in Japan. I am not familiar with the higher education systems in Korea and Singapore, but, I would be careful about lumping them with Japan under the “Asia” umbrella as if they were the same. I am conducting research to assess the viability of a team learning model with student volunteers at a private university in northern Japan. This last Wednesday, the students had their first exposure to small-group learning, which was a packed 90-minute introduction to team learning that started with a RAP and ended with the first public speaking assignment any of the students had ever had in college. Looking at the preliminary data today, I see that 30 out of the 32 subjects said a major challenge they face with team learning is overcoming their passive personalities. Most said that a reason they volunteered for the research is so they can learn how to be more assertive. Regardless, I fully agree with you; I believe that the problem with small-group learning is more with the professors and the institutions than with the students. Working with Japanese students in my own classroom, during guest lectures at Japanese universities, and in community workshops, I can usually get Japanese students to engage in small-group learning practices. I don’t usually need to get as formal as TBL because the context does not require it. What TBL is providing for me here is the RAP, which gives me a means to measure the difference between learning of individuals alone and learning of the same individuals in teams. Impressive results, by the way. I can understand how hearing about "a number of schools" in Asia might seem like a lot when perceived from across an ocean. Here on the ground, I am eager to find the undergraduate universities in Japan that are using small-group learning methods. I have been exchanging ideas with some scholars who are attempting to apply more collaborative processes in Tokyo, Kochi, and Kobe. So far, the few scholars I've been able to find applying more collaborative processes are working in graduate medical programs in large metropolitan areas. Just as Japan is neither Korea nor Singapore, Tokyo is not Japan. Therefore, when I try to hold up these "big city" graduate programs as examples for rural undergraduate professors to follow, they defend the status quo by saying "they can do that because they are working with graduate students; our students don't have what it takes to collaborate in learning." If you know of contacts in Japan who are using any kind of small-group learning method, please let me know. Like I said, I have been networking with some of them, but I am sure it’s not all of them. Thanks for your ideas. Regards, Brent