↓ Skip to main content

Using a Team-Based Learning Approach at National Meetings to Teach Residents Genomic Pathology

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th 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
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Using a Team-Based Learning Approach at National Meetings to Teach Residents Genomic Pathology
Published in
Journal of Graduate Medical Education, February 2016
DOI 10.4300/jgme-d-15-00221.1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Richard L. Haspel, Asma M. Ali, Grace C. Huang

Abstract

Accumulating data suggest that team-based learning (TBL) is more effective than lecture-based teaching strategies. Educational sessions at national meetings, however, tend to be lecture-based, and unlike most examples of TBL, involve participants who do not know each other or the instructor. We evaluated a 1-day TBL genomic pathology workshop for residents held at 3 national meetings. A committee of experts developed the workshop. Prior to attending, participants were provided access to readings and asked to answer preparation questions. Each of the 4 modules within the workshop consisted of a 60-minute TBL activity flanked by 15- to 30-minute preactivity and postactivity lectures. We used surveys to acquire participant evaluation of the workshop. From 2013-2014, 86 pathology residents from 61 programs participated in 3 workshops at national meetings. All workshops were well received, with over 90% of attendees indicating that they would recommend them to other residents and that the material would help them as practicing pathologists. An incremental approach facilitated decreasing faculty presence at the workshops: the first 2 workshops had 7 faculty each (1 facilitator for each team and 1 circulating faculty member), while the final workshop involved only 2 faculty for 6 teams. For this final session, participants agreed that circulating faculty provided adequate support. Participant "buy-in" (requiring completion of a preworkshop survey) was critical in enabling a TBL approach. These results demonstrate that TBL is a feasible and effective strategy for teaching genomic medicine that is acceptable to pathology residents at national meetings.

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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 18%
Student > Postgraduate 4 12%
Lecturer 4 12%
Researcher 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 8 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Unspecified 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 9 27%
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 11 February 2016.
All research outputs
#8,474,955
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Graduate Medical Education
#1,112
of 1,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,390
of 406,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Graduate Medical Education
#17
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,909 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 406,425 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.