↓ Skip to main content

Implementation of team-based learning in year 1 of a PBL based medical program: a pilot study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
138 Mendeley
Title
Implementation of team-based learning in year 1 of a PBL based medical program: a pilot study
Published in
BMC Medical Education, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0550-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annette Burgess, Tom Ayton, Craig Mellis

Abstract

A traditional and effective form of teaching within medical education has been Problem Based Learning (PBL). However, this method of teaching is resource intensive, normally requiring one tutor for every ten students. Team-based learning (TBL) has gained recent popularity in medical education, and can be applied to large groups of up to 100 students. TBL makes use of the advantages of small group teaching and learning, but in contrast to PBL, does not need large numbers of teachers. This study sought to explore the efficacy of using TBL in place of PBL in Year 1 of a medical program. In Year 1 of the medical program, two iterations of TBL, with 20 students, were run following four iterations of PBL within the Cardiology teaching block. Student feedback following PBL and TBL was collected by questionnaire, using closed and open ended questions. Additionally, individual and team tests were held at the beginning of each TBL class, and results of each week were compared. All students (n = 20) participated in the test in week 1, and 18/20 students participated in week 2. In total, 19/20 (95 %) of students completed the questionnaires regarding their PBL and TBL experiences. The use of small groups, the readiness assurance tests, immediate feedback from an expert clinician, as well as time efficiency were all aspects of the TBL experience that students found positive. The clinical problem-solving activity, however, was considered to be less effective with TBL. There was a significant improvement (p = 0.004) in students' score from the week 1 assessment (median = 2) to the week 2 (median = 3.5) assessment. Interestingly, all teams but one (Team 1) achieved a lower score on their second week assessment than on their first. However, the lowest performing team in week 1 outperformed all other teams in week 2. Students favoured many aspects of the TBL process, particularly motivation to do the pre-reading, and better engagement in the process. Additionally, the application of TBL principles meant the sessions were not reliant upon a large teacher to student ratio. Students, however, highlighted the need for more time within TBL for clinical problem-solving.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Iraq 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 136 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 17%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Lecturer 11 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 7%
Researcher 9 7%
Other 45 33%
Unknown 26 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 38%
Social Sciences 15 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 6%
Computer Science 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 21 15%
Unknown 32 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 03 June 2018.
All research outputs
#7,138,072
of 22,844,985 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,245
of 3,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,655
of 397,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#32
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,844,985 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,323 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 62% 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 397,006 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 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 62% of its contemporaries.