↓ Skip to main content

Team-based learning (TBL) in the medical curriculum: better than PBL?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
26 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
150 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
383 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Team-based learning (TBL) in the medical curriculum: better than PBL?
Published in
BMC Medical Education, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-1068-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annette Burgess, Jane Bleasel, Inam Haq, Chris Roberts, Roger Garsia, Tomas Robertson, Craig Mellis

Abstract

Internationally, medical schools have long used a variety of approaches to develop hybrid Problem based learning (PBL) curricula. However, Team-based learning (TBL), has gained recent popularity in medical education. TBL maintains the advantages of small group teaching and learning, but in contrast to Problem-based learning (PBL), does not require large numbers of tutors. In 2016, TBL was introduced to Year 1 of the Sydney Medical Program (SMP).This study sought to compare students' perceptions of using TBL in place of PBL. Year 1 students (n = 169) completed three PBL and three TBL sessions during one of the following teaching blocks: Musculoskeletal (n = 56), Respiratory (n = 59) or Cardiovascular (n = 54). Student feedback following completion of each block of teaching was collected by questionnaire, using closed and open ended items. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. In total, 144/169 (85%) of participants completed a questionnaire regarding PBL, and 152/169 (90%) completed a similar questionnaire regarding TBL. The students found positive aspects of their TBL experience to include the smaller group size, the use of readiness assurance tests, immediate feedback from senior clinicians, and time efficiency. In PBL, students reported that variable expertise of tutors; limited direction; and large group size hindered their learning. Overwhelmingly, students preferred TBL over PBL, as the optimal teaching strategy. Students found the structure and format of the TBL sessions more conducive to learning, engagement and participation than PBL sessions. Although the use of TBL required an instructional approach, needing direction from the tutor, it remained student-centred, generating a range of positive outcomes. Study results provide confidence to change from PBL to TBL within Year 1 and Year 2 of the SMP in 2017.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 383 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 383 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 43 11%
Lecturer 32 8%
Student > Bachelor 29 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 27 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 24 6%
Other 102 27%
Unknown 126 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 120 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 6%
Social Sciences 23 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 9 2%
Other 56 15%
Unknown 141 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 18 August 2022.
All research outputs
#2,274,866
of 25,701,027 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#321
of 4,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,926
of 447,686 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#12
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,701,027 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,042 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 447,686 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.