The University of Sydney, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Medical School, Education Office, The University of Sydney, Edward Ford Building A27, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
The University of Sydney, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Health Professional Education Research Network, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
BMC Med Educ. 2020 Dec 7;20(1):492. doi: 10.1186/s12909-020-02362-4.
BACKGROUND: With increased student numbers in the Sydney Medical Program, and concerns regarding standardisation across cohorts, student satisfaction of the problem-based learning (PBL) model had decreased in recent years. In 2017, Team-based learning (TBL) replaced PBL in Years 1 and 2 of the medical program. This study sought to explore students' perceptions of their experience of TBL, and to consider resource implications.
In 2017, Years 1 and 2 medical students (n = 625) participated in weekly TBL sessions, with approximately 60 students per class, consisting of 11 teams of five or six students. Each class was facilitated by a consultant, a basic scientist and a medical registrar. Prior to each class, students were given pre-work, and completed an online Individual Readiness Assurance Test (IRAT). During face-to-face class, students completed the Team Readiness Assurance Test (TRAT), and received feedback with clarification from facilitators, followed by clinical problem-solving activities. Student feedback was collected by questionnaire, using closed and open-ended items. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis.
In total, 232/275 (84%) Year 1 and 258/350 (74%) Year 2 students responded to the questionnaire. Students found positive aspects of TBL included the small group dynamics, intra- and inter-team discussions, interactions with facilitators, provision of clinical contexts by clinicians, and the readiness assurance process. Suggested improvements included: better alignment of pre-reading tasks, shorter class time, increased opportunity for clinical reasoning, and additional feedback on the mechanistic flowchart. Resource efficiencies were identified, such as a reduction in the number of teaching sessions and required facilitators, and the ability to provide each classroom with clinical expertise.
Our findings demonstrate that TBL, as a replacement for PBL in Years 1 and 2 of the medical curriculum, provided a standardised approach to small group learning on a large scale, and also provided resource efficiencies. Students perceived benefits related to the active learning strategy of TBL that encourage individual learning, consolidation of knowledge, retrieval practice, peer discussion and feedback. However, improvements are needed in terms of better alignment of pre-reading tasks with the TBL patient case, and greater facilitator interaction during the problem-solving activities. Additionally, consideration should be given to reducing class time, and providing TRAT scores.
背景:随着悉尼医学项目学生人数的增加,以及对各批次标准化的关注,近年来,学生对基于问题的学习(PBL)模式的满意度有所下降。2017 年,团队学习(TBL)取代了医学项目 1 年级和 2 年级的 PBL。本研究旨在探讨学生对 TBL 体验的看法,并考虑资源影响。
2017 年,1 年级和 2 年级医学生(n=625)参加了每周一次的 TBL 课程,每个班约有 60 名学生,由 11 个 5 到 6 名学生组成的团队组成。每个班由一名顾问、一名基础科学家和一名住院医师负责。在每节课之前,学生都要完成预习作业,并完成在线个人准备保证测验(IRAT)。在面对面的课堂上,学生完成团队准备保证测验(TRAT),并从导师那里获得反馈和澄清,然后进行临床解决问题的活动。通过封闭式和开放式问题的问卷调查收集学生反馈。使用描述性统计和主题分析进行数据分析。
共有 232/275(84%)1 年级和 258/350(74%)2 年级学生回答了问卷。学生发现 TBL 的积极方面包括小团体动态、团队内和团队间的讨论、与导师的互动、临床医生提供临床背景以及准备保证过程。建议的改进包括:更好地调整预习作业,缩短课程时间,增加临床推理的机会,以及对机械流程图的额外反馈。还确定了资源效率,例如减少教学课程和所需导师的数量,以及为每个教室提供临床专业知识的能力。
我们的研究结果表明,TBL 作为医学课程 1 年级和 2 年级 PBL 的替代方法,为大规模的小组学习提供了一种标准化的方法,同时也提高了资源效率。学生们认为 TBL 的主动学习策略有好处,例如鼓励个人学习、巩固知识、检索练习、同伴讨论和反馈。然而,需要改进的是更好地调整预习作业与 TBL 患者病例的一致性,以及在解决问题的活动中增加导师的互动。此外,还应考虑减少课堂时间和提供 TRAT 分数。