1365-2923/asset/olbannerleft.gif?v=1&s=e715a50d377e50b608e31c49e637019f8b599113)
1365-2923/asset/olbannerright.gif?v=1&s=d2da59fbe457d83389d3660b9f2a547e047567e1)
Active learning in a Year 2 pathology curriculum
Article first published online: 27 AUG 2005
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02248.x
Additional Information
How to Cite
Koles, P., Nelson, S., Stolfi, A., Parmelee, D. and DeStephen, D. (2005), Active learning in a Year 2 pathology curriculum. Medical Education, 39: 1045–1055. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02248.x
Publication History
- Issue published online: 27 AUG 2005
- Article first published online: 27 AUG 2005
- Received 22 July 2004; editorial comments to authors 7 September 2004; accepted for publication 26 November 2004
- Abstract
- Article
- References
- Cited By
Keywords:
- humans;
- prospective studies;
- comparative study;
- pathology/*education;
- *curriculum;
- teaching/*methods;
- *group processes;
- clinical competence/*standards;
- education;
- medical;
- undergraduate/*methods;
- crossover studies
Purpose Team-based learning (TBL) has been successfully used in non-medical curricula, but its effectiveness in medical education has not been studied extensively. We evaluated the impact of TBL on the academic performance of Year 2 medical students at Wright State University by comparing this active learning strategy against a traditional method of case-based group discussion (CBGD).
Methods A prospective crossover design assigned 83 Year 2 medical students to either CBGD or TBL for 8 pathology modules in the systems-based curriculum. The effectiveness of both learning methods was assessed by performance on pathology-based examination questions contained in end-of-course examinations. The highest and lowest academic quartiles of students were evaluated separately. Students' opinions of both methods were surveyed.
Results No significant differences in whole group performance on pathology-based examination questions were observed as a consequence of experiencing TBL versus CBGD. However, students in the lowest academic quartile showed better examination performance after experiencing TBL than CBGD in 4 of 8 modules (P = 0.035). Students perceived that the contributions of peers to learning were more helpful during TBL than CBGD (P = 0.003).
Conclusion This study demonstrates that TBL and CBGD are equally effective active learning strategies when employed in a systems-based pre-clinical pathology curriculum, but students with lower academic performance may benefit more from TBL than CBGD.