A controlled study of team-based learning for undergraduate clinical neurology education

Abstract

BackgroundTeam-based learning (TBL), a new active learning method, has not been reported for neurology education. We aimed to determine if TBL was more effective than passive learning (PL) in improving knowledge outcomes in two key neurology topics - neurological localization and neurological emergencies.MethodsWe conducted a modified crossover study during a nine-week internal medicine posting involving 49 third-year medical undergraduates, using TBL as the active intervention, compared against self-reading as a PL control, for teaching the two topics. Primary outcome was the mean percentage change in test scores immediately after (post-test 1) and 48 hours after TBL (post-test 2), compared to a baseline pre-test. Student engagement was the secondary outcome.ResultsMean percentage change in scores was greater in the TBL versus the PL group in post-test 1 (8.8% vs 4.3%, p = 0.023) and post-test 2 (11.4% vs 3.4%, p = 0.001). After adjustment for gender and second year examination grades, mean percentage change in scores remained greater in the TBL versus the PL group for post-test 1 (10.3% vs 5.8%, mean difference 4.5%,95% CI 0.7 - 8.3%, p = 0.021) and post-test 2 (13.0% vs 4.9%, mean difference 8.1%,95% CI 3.7 - 12.5%, p = 0.001), indicating further score improvement 48 hours post-TBL. Academically weaker students, identified by poorer examination grades, showed a greater increase in scores with TBL versus strong students (p < 0.02). Measures of engagement were high in the TBL group, suggesting that continued improvements in scores 48 hours post-TBL may result from self-directed learning.ConclusionsCompared to PL, TBL showed greater improvement in knowledge scores, with continued improvement up to 48 hours later. This effect is larger in academically weaker students. TBL is an effective method for improving knowledge in neurological localization and neurological emergencies in undergraduates.

Is a Team-based Learning Approach to Anatomy Teaching Superior to Didactic Lecturing ? = هل نهج طريقة التعلم القائم على الفريق لعلم التشريح أفضل من إلقاء المحاضرات التعليمية ؟

“…Moreover, Tan et al compared TBL with passive learning and reported that TBL is an effective technique for improving knowledge in undergraduate clinical neurology education. 20 In this study, the post-test scores were significantly higher than the pre-test scores. By working together in highly prepared and structured settings, the students performed better as a group.…”

“…18,19 Educational experiences using the TBL format were also compared with other methods. 20,21 For example, Mody et al compared TBL with the lecture-based method and showed that TBL can be used as a novel approach for medical students' education in family planning. 2 This is in agreement with our work.…”

Team-Based Learning in Pharmacy Education

“…18 The authors reported that team-based learning provided improved knowledge for all students as compared with passive learning. There was, however, particular benefit to those students who were academically the weakest.…”

“…In the foundational sciences, team-based learning has been used to teach medical students such varied topics as physiology, 15 pathology, 16 pharmacology, 17 neurology, 18 and anatomy. [19][20][21] Seidel and Richards reported that in addition to increased student engagement, there was an impressive level of student reasoning when teams were discussing physiology problems.…”

Retention in Enhanced Team Based Learning Course: retain or refrain?

“…The optional open-book component in TBL poses no negative effects in terms of decline in performance but rather an improvement in students' individual scores (Tan et al, 2011) as compared to conventionally described models of TBL. One study examining repeated testing by Marsh et al suggests that ease of recall can act to distract students into believing they understand the question and thus choose the incorrect answer upon retesting Puthucheary J, Goh S, Ha T, Graham D, Cook S MedEdPublish https://doi.org/10.15694/mep.2017.000072 (Marsh, Roediger, Bjork, & Bjork, 2007).…”