Questions we care about (Objectives): When students have to work on challenging tasks, as it isoften the case in entrepreneurship classrooms that leverage experiential learning, team successbecomes central to the students learning. Yet, the formation of teams is often left up to thestudents or pre-arranged at random. Therefore we investigate the importance of team formation inthe entrepreneurial classroom and ask: (i) What are the underlying factors that influence outcomesof teamwork in student groups? (ii) How does team formation influence student perception oflearning?, and (iii) Do different team formation strategies produce different teamwork andlearning outcomes?Approach: We employed a multiple case study design comprising of 38 student teams to uncoverpotential links between team formation and student perception of learning. This research draws ondata from three different entrepreneurship process (‘through’) modules at a single institution. Thethree modules all combine similar theoretical background knowledge (e.g. effectuation,opportunities and business models) with hands-on tools (e.g. design process) to stimulate activeparticipation, but are characterized by three distinctive types of team formation: random teacherpre-assigned, student selection, and teacher directed diversity. In each of these modules,ethnographic methods (interviews and observations) were employed. Additionally, we had accessto students learning logs, formative and summative assessments, and final exams. A rigorouscoding and inductive analysis process was undertaken. Pattern and relationship coding were usedto reveal underlying factors, which helped to unveil important similarities and differences betweenstudent in different teams’ project progress and perception of learning.Results: When students are randomly assigned, they are (i) surprised by people, who are differentfrom them; (ii) challenged by having to find a common language; (iii) learn that heterogeneitypotentially produces individual identity growth. However, despite these advantages, random teamformation strategy leads to less well functioning entrepreneurial student teams as most teams lackpersonal chemistry which makes them anchor their work too much in a pre-defined project. Incontrast, we find that students that can form their own teams aim for less diverse teams than whatis achieved by random assignment. However, the homophily the students are seeking with regardsto ‘personal chemistry’ seems to be favourable for entrepreneurial student teams because itenables them to have team relationships as the anchor for their work. In this way the teambecomes an important enabler to endure the pressure and volatility of an entrepreneurial processand progress relatively fast.Implications: It is important for teachers to recognize that student team assignment is not the sameas student team formation and that team formation requires time. Furthermore, while student selfselectionteam formation strategy is favorable for ‘through’ modules, random assignment is asuitable choice for ‘for’ and rather causal-designed entrepreneurship modules.Value/Originality: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper addressing the issue of teamformation and student learning which is of immense practical value for entrepreneurship educators.It is important for educators to understand that the formation of teams has implications forstudents’ perceived learning and progress in an entrepreneurial process and thus team formationneeds to be considered when designing and running the module.