A Trial of Team-Based Versus Small-Group Learning for Second-Year Medical Students: Does the Size of the Small Group Make a Difference?

Willett, Laura Rees; Rosevear, G C; Kim, Sarang

doi:10.1080/10401334.2011.536756

Cited by 34 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Three hundred and thirty studies were identified, and 14 were included ( 2011; Willett et al 2011), two prospective cohort studies (Torralba et al 2009;Wiener et al 2009), one retrospective cohort study (Koles et al 2010), one concurrent cohort study (Zingone et al 2010) and seven non-concurrent cohorts (Nieder et al 2005;Levine et al 2004;Letassy et al 2008;Pileggi & O'Neill 2008;Mennenga 2010;Simaan et al 2010;Zgheib et al 2010). Of the 14 included studies, 12 took place in the United States, 1 in Lebanon (Zgheib et al 2010) and 1 in Austria (Wiener et al 2009).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The only study that did not include undergraduate learners assessed internal medicine residents in their first, second and third postgraduate years (Torralba et al 2009). All 14 studies assessed knowledge as a learning outcome, and 7 studies also assessed learner reaction (Koles et al 2005;Levine et al 2004;Letassy et al 2008;Conway et al 2010;Zingone et al 2010;Thomas & Bowen 2011;Willett et al 2011). None of the studies evaluated Kirkpatrick outcomes such as skills or improvements for patients.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The three randomised and non-randomised controlled trials were assessed for quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Allocation appeared to be appropriately randomised in the RCT (Koles et al 2005), while the two NRCTs allocated students to groups based on last name (Thomas & Bowen 2011;Willett et al 2011). None of the trials attempted to blind the students to their allocation or to the study hypothesis.…”

Section: Methodological Quality and Risk Of Bias Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Seven studies reported a statistically significant increase ( p 5 0.05) in knowledge scores for the TBL group compared with a non-TBL group. However, one NRCT (n ¼ 167) reported that after adjusting for pre-intervention knowledge scores between groups, there was no significant difference after TBL implementation (Willett et al 2011). Among the other studies reporting a significant difference were one NRCT (n ¼ 112) (Thomas & Bowen 2011), one retrospective cohort (n ¼ 186) (Koles et al 2010), one concurrent cohort (n ¼ 64) (Zingone et al 2010) and three non-concurrent cohorts (n ¼ 306, n ¼ 371, n ¼ unclear) (Nieder et al 2005;Levine et al 2004;Zgheib et al 2010).…”

Section: Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two studies compared TBL to CBGD; one study found statistically significant improvements, while the other found significant improvements only in students in the lowest academic quartile (Zgheib et al 2010;Koles et al 2005). Two trials compared TBL to their own form of SGL and both reported statistically significant results favouring TBL (Thomas & Bowen 2011;Willett et al 2011). The remaining two studies used mixed active learning methods and independent study as comparators, which are less standardised learning strategies.…”

Section: Comparison Groupmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The effectiveness of team-based learning on learning outcomes in health professions education: BEME Guide No. 30

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Team-Based Learning (TBL) is a student-centred active learning method, requiring less faculty time than other active learning methods. While TBL may have pedagogical value, individual studies present inconsistent findings. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of TBL on improving learning outcomes in health professions education. Methods: A peer-reviewed systematic review protocol was registered with the Best Evidence in Medical Education (BEME) organization. After comprehensive literature searching, title and full-text review were completed by two independent reviewers. Included studies assessed TBL and a valid comparator in health professions. Included studies were assessed for methodological quality by two independent reviewers. Studies were categorised by outcomes using the Kirkpatrick framework. Results: Of 330 screened titles, 14 were included. Seven studies reported significant increase in knowledge scores for the TBL group, four reported no difference and three showed improvement but did not comment on statistical significance. Only one study reported significant improvement in learner reaction for the TBL group while another study reported a significant difference favouring the comparator. Conclusions: Despite improvement in knowledge scores, there was mixed learner reaction. This may reflect the increased demands on learners in this student-centred teaching strategy, although further study is needed.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodological Quality and Risk Of Bias Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Comparison Groupmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The effectiveness of team-based learning on learning outcomes in health professions education: BEME Guide No. 30

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Is learning outcome after team based learning influenced by gender and academic standing?

Das

Nandi

Baruah

et al. 2018

Biochem Molecular Bio Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Team based learning (TBL) is a time tested teaching-learning (T-L) tool involving collaborative learning but has hardly been tested for teaching clinical biochemistry to undergraduate medical students. The present study was designed to (a) compare problem solving skills of first year MBBS students after attending a TBL session on 'organ function test' with that of the students taught the same topic by didactic lecture, (b) assess their perception towards TBL and (c) evaluate if difference in academic standing and gender influence the learning outcome of TBL.One Hundred first professional MBBS students were divided by stratified randomization into two groups. Group I was exposed to TBL to teach 'organ function tests', while group II was taught the same topic by traditional lecture. The outcome of the T-L sessions was assessed by a test for problem solving skills. Student perception towards TBL was assessed from students' response to a questionnaire. No significant difference between the two groups in problem solving skills could be discerned. High achievers performed better after TBL session, while the low achievers were more benefited by traditional lecture method. The female students showed better academic performance after TBL in comparison to male students. The students gave positive feedback for TBL as an instructional technique. We conclude that TBL gives satisfaction, is not inferior to lecture in effectiveness and hence should be used as a T-L method for undergraduate medical students. Moreover, being more effective for female students and high achievers, it is judicious to utilize TBL more frequently for them in an attempt to provide the best individualized teaching.

show abstract

Dental Student Perceptions of Case‐Based Educational Effectiveness

McKenzie

2013

Journal of Dental Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the effects of a case-based education course on second-year dental students. It explored what impact the small-group environment had on the participants professionally, communicatively, and personally and also analyzed their performance evaluations of the facilitators. The study employed a pretest-posttest survey design. Students' professional development consistently showed a positive signiicant change as a result of the course, especially regarding perceived skills. The course was found to have impacted the students' conidence in their own team contribution, and their ability to discuss and present treatment plans also signiicantly increased. This study did not ind evidence of inluence on the students' personal beneit. The students reported perceiving that the facilitators' abilities were stronger at the beginning of the course, but then the ratings decreased over time. Overall, the case-based education course was found to have positively affected students' knowledge and skills acquisition as well as their communication skills.

show abstract

A Trial of Team-Based Versus Small-Group Learning for Second-Year Medical Students: Does the Size of the Small Group Make a Difference?

Abstract: Team-based learning does not adversely affect examination performance. However, student satisfaction may be inferior, especially if compared to instruction in very small groups of 10 or fewer students.

Cited by 34 publications

References 7 publications

The effectiveness of team-based learning on learning outcomes in health professions education: BEME Guide No. 30

The effectiveness of team-based learning on learning outcomes in health professions education: BEME Guide No. 30

Is learning outcome after team based learning influenced by gender and academic standing?

Dental Student Perceptions of Case‐Based Educational Effectiveness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About