↓ Skip to main content

Implementation of modified team-based learning within a problem based learning medical curriculum: a focus group study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
74 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
360 Mendeley
Title
Implementation of modified team-based learning within a problem based learning medical curriculum: a focus group study
Published in
BMC Medical Education, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1172-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annette Burgess, Chris Roberts, Tom Ayton, Craig Mellis

Abstract

While Problem Based Learning (PBL) has long been established internationally, Team-based learning (TBL) is a relatively new pedagogy in medical curricula. Both PBL and TBL are designed to facilitate a learner-centred approach, where students, in interactive small groups, use peer-assisted learning to solve authentic, professionally relevant problems. Differences, however, exist between PBL and TBL in terms of preparation requirements, group numbers, learning strategies, and class structure. Although there are many similarities and some differences between PBL and TBL, both rely on constructivist learning theory to engage and motivate students in their learning. The aim of our study was to qualitatively explore students' perceptions of having their usual PBL classes run in TBL format. In 2014, two iterations in a hybrid PBL curriculum were converted to TBL format, with two PBL groups of 10 students each, being combined to form one TBL class of 20, split into four groups of five students. At the completion of two TBL sessions, all students were invited to attend one of two focus groups, with 14 attending. Thematic analysis was used to code and categorise the data into themes, with constructivist theory used as a conceptual framework to identify recurrent themes. Four key themes emerged; guided learning, problem solving, collaborative learning, and critical reflection. Although structured, students were attracted to the active and collaborative approach of TBL. They perceived the key advantages of TBL to include the smaller group size, the preparatory Readiness Assurance Testing process, facilitation by a clinician, an emphasis on basic science concepts, and immediate feedback. The competitiveness of TBL was seen as a spur to learning. These elements motivated students to prepare, promoted peer assisted teaching and learning, and focussed team discussion. An important advantage of PBL over TBL, was the opportunity for adequate clinical reasoning within the problem solving activity. Students found their learning experience in TBL and PBL qualitatively different. There were advantages and disadvantages to both. This suggests a hybrid approach utilising the strengths of both methods should be considered for wide scale implementation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 360 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 360 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 41 11%
Lecturer 32 9%
Student > Bachelor 25 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 6%
Researcher 16 4%
Other 67 19%
Unknown 159 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 70 19%
Social Sciences 29 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 4%
Psychology 12 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 2%
Other 56 16%
Unknown 170 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 August 2018.
All research outputs
#13,014,856
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,526
of 3,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,193
of 329,243 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#40
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,371 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,243 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.