Team-based learning at ten medical schools: two years later

  1. Britta M Thompson1,
  2. Virginia F Schneider1,
  3. Paul Haidet1,2,
  4. Ruth E Levine3,
  5. Kathryn K McMahon4,
  6. Linda C Perkowski5,
  7. Boyd F Richards1

Article first published online: 16 JAN 2007

DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02684.x

Issue

Medical Education

Medical Education

Volume 41, Issue 3, pages 250–257, March 2007

Additional Information

How to Cite

Thompson, B. M., Schneider, V. F., Haidet, P., Levine, R. E., McMahon, K. K., Perkowski, L. C. and Richards, B. F. (2007), Team-based learning at ten medical schools: two years later. Medical Education, 41: 250–257. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02684.x

Author Information

  1. 1

    Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA

  2. 2

    Houston Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, TX, USA

  3. 3

    University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, TX, USA

  4. 4

    Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, TX, USA

  5. 5

    University of Minnesota Medical School, MN, USA

*Britta M. Thompson, Assistant Professor, Office of Curriculum, M301, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, USA. E-mail: brittat@bcm.tmc.edu

Publication History

  1. Issue published online: 20 FEB 2007
  2. Article first published online: 16 JAN 2007
  3. Received 4 April 2006; editorial comments to authors 4 August 2006; accepted for publication 31 October 2006

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

ARTICLE TOOLS

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (99K)

Keywords:

  • education;
  • medical, undergraduate/*methods;
  • teaching/*methods;
  • group processes;
  • United States;
  • faculty

Purpose  In 2003, we described initial use of team-based learning (TBL) at 10 medical schools. The purpose of the present study was to review progress and understand factors affecting the use of TBL at these schools during the subsequent 2 years.

Methods  Representatives from 10 schools evaluated in 2003 were again evaluated in 2005. They were interviewed by members of the Team Based Learning Collaborative using a semistructured interview process. Data were analysed by 2 researchers using the constant comparative method and were triangulated through sharing results with other interviewers at regular intervals to verify conclusions and form consensus.

Results  TBL continued to be used in all but 1 school. At the 9 remaining schools, TBL was added to 18 courses, continued to be used in 19 and was discontinued in 13 courses. At some schools, it was discontinued in single courses in lieu of new, longitudinal integration courses in which TBL was a main instructional strategy. Faculty, student, course and institutional factors were associated with changes in TBL use.

Conclusion  Faculty, administration/curriculum, students and characteristics of specific courses influence ongoing utilisation of TBL. Those who desire to implement TBL would do well to take these factors into account as they plan implementation efforts at their schools.

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (99K)