Alimoglu Mustafa Kemal, Yardım Selda, Uysal Hilmi
Department of Medical Education, School of Medicine, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey; and
Department of Medical Education, School of Medicine, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey; and.
Adv Physiol Educ. 2017 Mar 1;41(1):38-43. doi: 10.1152/advan.00130.2016.
In our medical school, we changed from a lecture-based method to a team-based learning (TBL) method to teach "polyneuropathies" in the neurology clerkship starting from the 2014 to 2015 academic year. Real patients were used instead of written scenarios in TBL sessions. This study aimed to compare former lecture-based and the current TBL methods in terms of knowledge retention, in-class learner engagement, and learner reactions. First, we determined in-class engagement and satisfaction of the students for the lectures given in the 2013-2014 academic year. The following year, besides the same criteria, we also determined individual (IRAT) and group readiness test (GRAT) scores in the TBL group. End-of-clerkship exam scores for both groups were recorded. Additionally, opinions of patients about their experiences throughout the TBL process were determined. One year later (2015 for lecture and 2016 for TBL), both groups sat for an MCQ test to determine their knowledge retention levels. We found no difference between groups regarding end-of-clerkship exam scores. The mean knowledge retention test score of the TBL group was significantly higher than that of the lecture group (5.85 ± 1.74 vs. 3.28 ± 1.70). The differences between IRAT, GRAT, and retention test scores in the TBL group were significant. The mean student satisfaction score on a five-point scale was 3.01 ± 0.9 (median = 3) in the lecture group and 4.11 ± 1.1 (median = 4) in the TBL group. Our results seem encouraging for use of TBL performed with real patients in neurology education to achieve better long-term knowledge retention and higher in-class engagement and student satisfaction.
在我们医学院,从2014至2015学年开始,我们在神经科实习教学中从基于讲座的方法转变为基于团队的学习(TBL)方法来教授“多发性神经病”。在TBL课程中使用真实患者而非书面案例。本研究旨在比较以前基于讲座的方法和当前的TBL方法在知识保留、课堂学习者参与度和学习者反应方面的差异。首先,我们确定了2013 - 2014学年学生对讲座的课堂参与度和满意度。次年,除了相同标准外,我们还确定了TBL组的个人(IRAT)和小组准备度测试(GRAT)分数。记录了两组的实习结束考试成绩。此外,还确定了患者对其在整个TBL过程中经历的看法。一年后(讲座组为2015年,TBL组为2016年),两组参加了多项选择题测试以确定他们的知识保留水平。我们发现两组在实习结束考试成绩方面没有差异。TBL组的平均知识保留测试分数显著高于讲座组(5.85±1.74对3.28±1.70)。TBL组的IRAT、GRAT和保留测试分数之间存在显著差异。讲座组学生的平均满意度得分为3.01±0.9(中位数 = 3),TBL组为4.11±1.1(中位数 = 4)。我们的结果似乎表明,在神经科教育中使用与真实患者进行的TBL以实现更好的长期知识保留、更高的课堂参与度和学生满意度是令人鼓舞的。