Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating the Use of Second Life™ for Virtual Team-Based Learning in an Online Undergraduate Anatomy Course

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Medical Science Educator Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Team-based learning (TBL) is one strategy for improving team-work and critical thinking skills. It has proven to be an engaging teaching pedagogy in face-to-face classes; however, to our knowledge, it has never been implemented online in a 3-D virtual world. We implemented virtual TBLs in an online undergraduate anatomy course using Second Life™, and evaluated whether it engaged students. This study was conducted over two semesters with 39 total students. Surveys and content analysis of transcripts were used to evaluate student engagement. Our results indicate virtual TBLs were engaging for most students. The average engagement score was 7.8 out of 10 with 89.2% of students reporting a score of 6 or above. Students exhibited high levels of cognitive engagement during the clinical application portion of the TBL process. Males felt more emotionally engaged than females; however, most measures of engagement indicated no differences between groups of students (mode of communication, previous technology experience, gender, and performance); therefore, virtual TBLs may be engaging for a broad range of students. Ninety-five percent of students agreed that this was a worthwhile experience. In light of this evidence, we feel that virtual TBL sessions are valuable, and could be implemented in other online courses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Harry K, John M, Keegan D. Distance education: new perspectives. Routledge. 2013.

  2. Lauzon A. Integrating computer-based instruction with computer conferencing: an evaluation of a model for designing online education. Am J Dist Educ. 1992;6(2):32–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bullen M. Participation and critical thinking in online university distance education. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education. 2007;13(2):1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Garrison DR, Anderson T, Archer W. Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. Am J Dist Educ. 2001;15(1):7–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Williams EA, Duray R, Reddy V. Teamwork orientation, group cohesiveness, and student learning: a study of the use of teams in online distance education. J Manag Educ. 2006;30(4):592–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Michaelsen LK, Sweet M. Team-based learning. New directions for teaching and learning. 2011;2011(128):41–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. McInerney MJ, Fink LD. Team-based learning enhances long-term retention and critical thinking in an undergraduate microbial physiology course. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education. 2003; 4 (1)

  8. McMahon KK. Team-based learning. In: An introduction to medical teaching. Springer. 2010 pp 55–64

  9. Haidet P, Kubitz K, McCormack WT. Analysis of the team-based learning literature: TBL comes of age. J Excell Coll Teach. 2014;25(3–4):303.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Inuwa IM. Perceptions and attitudes of first-year medical students on a modified team-based learning (TBL) strategy in anatomy. Sultan Qaboos University medical journal. 2012;12(3):336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Vasan NS, DeFouw DO, Compton S. A survey of student perceptions of team-based learning in anatomy curriculum: favorable views unrelated to grades. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2(4):150–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Michaelsen Larry K, Parmelee Dean X, McMahon Kathryn K, Levine Ruth E. Team-based learning for health professions education: a guide to using small groups for improving learning. Sterling, USA: Stylus Publishing LLC; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Richardson-Hatcher A, Hazzard M, Bentley C, Gazave C, Greenlee T, Brueckner-Collins J. Team-based learning in a 3D online environment. Medical Science Educator. 2014;24(1):11–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Vasan NS, DeFouw DO, Compton S. Team-based learning in anatomy: an efficient, effective, and economical strategy. Anat Sci Educ. 2011;4(6):333–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. De Lucia A, Francese R, Passero I, Tortora G. Development and evaluation of a virtual campus on Second Life: the case of SecondDMI. Comput Educ. 2009;52(1):220–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Boulos MNK, Hetherington L, Wheeler S. Second Life: an overview of the potential of 3-D virtual worlds in medical and health education. Health Information & Libraries Journal. 2007;24(4):233–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Baker SC, Wentz RK, Woods MM. Using virtual worlds in education: Second Life® as an educational tool. Teach Psychol. 2009;36(1):59–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Tai BC, Koh WP. Does team learning motivate students’ engagement in an evidence-based medicine course? Ann Acad Med Singap. 2008;37(12):1019.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Boekaerts M. Engagement as an inherent aspect of the learning process. Learn Instr. 2016;43:76–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Parsons J, Taylor L. Improving student engagement. Current issues in education. 2011; 14 (1).

  21. Wang M-T, Fredricks JA, Ye F, Hofkens TL, Linn JS. The math and science engagement scales: scale development, validation, and psychometric properties. Learn Instr. 2016;43:16–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Fredricks JA, McColskey W. The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In: Handbook of research on student engagement. Springer.2012 pp 763–782.

  23. Appleton JJ, Christenson SL, Kim D, Reschly AL. Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: validation of the student engagement instrument. J Sch Psychol. 2006;44(5):427–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Appleton JJ, Christenson SL, Furlong MJ. Student engagement with school: critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychol Sch. 2008;45(5):369–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Jimerson SR, Campos E, Greif JL. Toward an understanding of definitions and measures of school engagement and related terms. The California School Psychologist. 2003;8(1):7–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Guthrie R, Carlin A. Waking the dead: Using interactive technology to engage passive listeners in the classroom. AMCIS 2004 Proceedings. 2004; 358.

  27. Azevedo R. Defining and measuring engagement and learning in science: conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and analytical issues. Educ Psychol. 2015;50(1):84–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Fredricks JA, Blumenfeld PC, Paris AH. School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Rev Educ Res. 2004;74(1):59–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Zyngier D. (Re) conceptualising student engagement: doing education not doing time. Teach Teach Educ. 2008;24(7):1765–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Chapman E. Assessing Student Engagement Rates. ERIC Digest. 2003.

  31. Zhu E. Interaction and cognitive engagement: an analysis of four asynchronous online discussions. Instr Sci. 2006;34(6):451–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lin P-C, Hou H-T, Wang S-M, Chang K-E. Analyzing knowledge dimensions and cognitive process of a project-based online discussion instructional activity using Facebook in an adult and continuing education course. Comput Educ. 2013;60(1):110–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hara N, Bonk CJ, Angeli C. Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instr Sci. 2000;28(2):115–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Greene BA. Measuring cognitive engagement with self-report scales: reflections from over 20 years of research. Educ Psychol. 2015;50(1):14–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ryan AM, Patrick H. The classroom social environment and changes in adolescents’ motivation and engagement during middle school. Am Educ Res J. 2001;38(2):437–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Fredricks JA, Wang M-T, Linn JS, Hofkens TL, Sung H, Parr A, Allerton J. Using qualitative methods to develop a survey measure of math and science engagement. Learn Instr. 2016;43:5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lane ES, Harris SE. A new tool for measuring student behavioral engagement in large university classes. J Coll Sci Teach. 2015;44(6):83–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Rovai AP, Jordan H. Blended learning and sense of community: a comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 2004;5(2)

  39. Rovai AP. Development of an instrument to measure classroom community. Internet High Educ. 2002;5(3):197–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Rovai AP. Building sense of community at a distance. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 2002;3(1)

  41. Espey M. Valuing teams: what influences student attitudes. NACTA J. 2010;54(1):31–40.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Meyer KA. The ebb and flow of online discussions: what bloom can tell us about our students’ conversations. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. 2005;9(1):53–63.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Meyer KA. Evaluating online discussions: four different frames of analysis. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. 2004;8(2):101–14.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Krathwohl DR. A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: an overview. Theory Pract. 2002;41(4):212–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Hallgren KA. Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: an overview and tutorial. Tutorials in quantitative methods for psychology. 2012;8(1):23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Whitley BE. Gender differences in computer-related attitudes and behavior: a meta-analysis. Comput Hum Behav. 1997;13(1):1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Gentile DA, Lynch PJ, Linder JR, Walsh DA. The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviors, and school performance. J Adolesc. 2004;27(1):5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kron FW, Gjerde CL, Sen A, Fetters MD. Medical student attitudes toward video games and related new media technologies in medical education. BMC Medical Education. 2010;10(1):1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Brian MacPherson, Dr. Brueckner-Collins, Mr. Hazzard, Dr. Johnson, Dr. Kramer, Dr. Parmelee, Dr. Richardson, Ms. Yuan, and Mr. Huang, for their advice and technical assistance on this project. We also thank Sydney Crawley, Kyle Skaggs, and Charlotte Stewart for assisting in this project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA

    Christena M. Gazave & April R. Hatcher PhD

Authors
  1. Christena M. Gazave
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. April R. Hatcher PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christena M. Gazave.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gazave, C.M., R. Hatcher, A. Evaluating the Use of Second Life™ for Virtual Team-Based Learning in an Online Undergraduate Anatomy Course. Med.Sci.Educ. 27, 217–227 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-017-0374-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-017-0374-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation