Comparison of Team‐Based Learning versus Traditional Lectures in Neuroanatomy: Medical Student Knowledge and Satisfaction

Abstract

Neuroanatomy is often considered a difficult subject to teach, due to its broad scope, multitude of terms, and high degree of complexity. Thus, newer educational strategies that facilitate learning while also stimulating students by allowing increased student autonomy and group discussions should be carefully considered. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of introducing team‐based learning (TBL) in the traditional discipline of neuroanatomy and to measure student knowledge acquisition and perception relative to traditional lectures (TL). A quasi‐experimental, nonrandomized study was performed using two consecutive TBL classes (intervention group, n = 157 students, 25% content using TBL) with a TL class (control group, n = 76). Team‐based learning sessions included all stages according to the classic description of the method. Student knowledge acquisition was assessed in regularly scheduled tests during the discipline, and their perception regarding TBL was evaluated using a questionnaire (developed by the authors). The groups presented a similar sociodemographic profile (sex and age) and the same performance in another anatomy discipline before the study. Team‐based learning was significantly associated with greater acceptance, higher motivation, better student perception, and feelings that the methodology was able to integrate clinical and basic sciences. Nevertheless, according to tests, knowledge acquisition was similar between the TBL and lectures. In conclusion, since TBL is comparable to TL for knowledge acquisition, TBL seems to be a promising strategy to improve the teaching of neuroanatomy in medical schools. It fosters group discussions and increases satisfaction and the perception of integration between clinical and basic sciences.

Instructor Methods and Curricular Effects on Students’ Value of Lectures

“…Instructor methods with the lowest ratings from students in the present study were the use of active learning strategies and instructional aids, and professional attire. However, other studies reported active learning strategies encouraged students' critical thinking and engagement as well as positively influenced students' perception of effective content delivery [20][21][22]. We have no data to explain why preclinical students in the present study rated active learning strategies and instructional aids as less important; however, it may be a future topic worthy of investigation.…”

“…Several studies have reported that increased lecture attendance improved course examination performance and national board scores [15,17,18]; however, other studies suggest that academic performance is unaffected by lecture attendance [7,12,19,20]. Therefore, if lecture attendance and academic performance are equivocal, faculty derive job satisfaction with students lecture attendance, and live lectures continue as a common instructional method; teaching faculty and administrators must determine strategies that will encourage students' attendance of scheduled lectures.…”

Four Corners: an educational strategy for learning infectious diseases in medical school

“…For the team-based learning (TBL), the authors concluded the activity was significantly associated with greater acceptance and higher motivation; otherwise, knowledge acquisition was similar between the TBL and the regular lectures 11 .…”

Peer Assessment in the Context of Team-Based Learning in Undergraduate Education: How Far Can We Go?

“…Most of these changes were described as positive and include speaking more in groups, increased patience and punctuality, or higher motivation (Nofziger et al, 2010). However, few articles and studies address the introduction of the peer assessment method in the early stages of medical education in the undergraduate course (de Fátima Wardenski et al, 2012;Rezende et al, 2019). Thus, studying the impact and effectiveness of its introduction on this context is necessary.…”

“…Although the FG was lower than that of the MTBLs in only 3 out 17 teams (Table 1), one should consider that using the test can positively influence the learning outcomes, since any new instructional method has, as a rule, the benefit of awakening the highest level of interest, which can translate into better academic results, perhaps more associated with the fact that it is a new and more attractive modality than the modality itself (Rezende et al, 2019).…”