I taught a senior level course in an IT program that essentially help students understand how to secure the perimeter of a network. While students were in a cohort, some had different training in underclass courses, and therefore different skills.

I located an assessment exam and had each student complete it. Those with the highest overall score could be "team captain" if they wished. Then I ranked the other students in terms of their proficiency in one of four areas. With this information on the back of the assessment results, the captains chose their teams based on assembling a thorough skill set, and not by name.

The class was hybrid, meaning half online and half in-seat. During the online weeks, students collaborated in their teams to determine certain approaches to technical needs. In the in-seat meetings, they were required to "build out" the technology, using a variety of solutions and materials they had, or requested (and I could provide). Students found the 3.5 hour evening class time to "disappear" as they focused on getting as many of the required tasks done as possible.

Each week a student was Team Lead, and evaluated the team members individual progress, while the team reviewed the leader. This was used to modify the team's score for the night so each student could receive an individual score higher or lower than other members (although most weeks, most teams did not "ding" another student for performance unless it was truly deserved).

Whether the final "secured perimeter" network was complete and thorough at the end of the course was secondary to the fact that students got to design their own solutions to a problem, got to learn some new approaches, understood how to do things instead of just knowing about them, and experienced how to work in an environment where there was reliance on the efforts of others. Most significant IT efforts are rarely the work of a single person.