Advertisement

Medical Science Educator

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 57–64 | Cite as

21st Century Learning in Medicine: Traditional Teaching versus Team-based Learning

  • Robert K. KameiEmail author
  • Sandy Cook
  • Janil Puthucheary
  • C. Frank Starmer
Original Research

Abstract

The learning strategy developed by Duke-NUS educators, called TeamLEAD, incorporates Team-Based Learning principles. Lectures, readings and e-learning on a given topic are completed before class; in-class activity focuses on assuring understanding, applying principles, and solving problems within student teams facilitated by faculty. The study compared Duke-NUS students’ results on the National Board of Medical Examiners Comprehensive Basic Science Examination (CBSE) and United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 with those of US medical students. The Duke and Duke-NUS curriculum is unique in that the basic science foundation is taught in one year, typically half the time devoted at other US medical schools. At the end of their basic science instruction, the first three student cohorts from Duke-NUS performed comparably to US students on the CBSE At the end of their second year (devoted to clinical work), the Duke-NUS students scored significantly higher than the US students (66.5±7.8 vs. 61.0±11.0) (p<.0.05; 95% CI [65.1 to 67.9]). The first two years of Duke-NUS student also scored significantly higher than US students on the USMLE Step 1 (228.4±20.7 vs. 222±24) (p<.028; 95% CI [223.5 to 233.3]). In less curricular time, Duke-NUS students achieved the standards of basic science knowledge achieved by US medical students. Duke-NUS students at the end of their second (clinical) year, performed significantly higher than the US students.

Keywords

Basic Science United States Medical Licensing Examinations Learning Strategies Pre-Clinical Curriculum Team Based Learning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ebbinghaus H, Ruger HA, Bussenius CE. Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology: Teachers College, Columbia University; 1913.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Williams RS, Casey PJ, Kamei RK, et al. A global partnership in medical education between Duke University and the National University of Singapore. Academic Medicine. Feb 2008;83(2):122–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grochowski CO, Halperin EC, Buckley EG. A curricula rmodel for the training of physician scientists: the evolution of the Duke University School of Medicine curriculum. Academic Medicine. 2007;82(4):375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Johnson DW, Johnson RT, Stanne MB. Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. May. 2000; http://www.tablelearning.com/uploads/File/EXHIBIT-B.pdf (Retrieved 27 March 2012).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Johnson DW, Johnson RT, Smith KA. Cooperative learning returns to college: What evidence is there that it works? Change. 1998:26–35.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Smith KA, Sheppard SD, Johnson DW, Johnson RT. Pedagogies of engagement: classroom-based practices. Journal of Engineering Education. 2005;94(1):87–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Slavin RE. Cooperative learning. Review of educational research. 1980;50(2):315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boling NC, Robinson DH. Individual Study, Interactive Multimedia, or Cooperative Learning: Which Activity Best Supplements Lecture-Based Distance Education? Journal of Educational Psychology. 1999;91(1):169–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lord TR. 101 reasons for using cooperative learning in biology teaching. The American Biology Teacher. 2001;63(1):30–38.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Michaelsen LK, Parmelee DX, McMahon KK. Team-Based Learning for Health Professions Education, A Guide to Using Small Groups for Improving Learning. 1st edition ed. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus Publishing, LLC; 2008.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Michaelsen LK, Knight AB, Fink LD. Team-Based Learning, A Transformative Use of Small Groups in College Teaching. 1st edition. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus Publishing, LLC; 2002.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vasan NS, Defouw D. Team learning in a medical gross anatomy course. Medical Education. 2005;39(5):524–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thompson BM, Schneider VF, Haidet P, Perkowski LC, Richards BF. Factors Influencing Implementation of Team-Based Learning in Health Sciences Education. Academic Medicine RIME: Proceedings of the Forty-Sixth Annual Conference November 4–November 7, 2007. October 2007;82(10):S53–S56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Searle NS, Haidet P, Kelly PA, Schneider VF, Seidel CL, Richards BF. Team learning in medical education: initial experiences at ten institutions. Academic Medicine. 2003;78(10):S55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nieder GL, Parmelee DX, Stolfi A, Hudes PD. Team-based learning in a medical gross anatomy and embryology course. Clin Anat. Jan 2005;18(1):56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Levine RE, O’Boyle M, Haidet P, et al. Transforming a clinical clerkship with team learning. Teach Learn Med. Summer 2004;16(3):270–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hunt DP, Haidet P, Coverdale JH, Richards B. The Effect of Using Team Learning in an Evidence-Based Medicine Course for Medical Students. Teaching and Learning in Medicine. 2003;15(2):131–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Haidet P, O’Malley K, Richards B. An initial experience with “team learning” in medical education. Acad Med. Jan 2002;77(1):40–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goldberg HR, Dintzis R. The positive impact of team-based virtual microscopy on student learning in physiology and histology. Advances in Physiology Education. 2007;31(3):261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Michaelsen L, Richards B. COMMENTARY: Drawing Conclusions from the Team-Learning Literature in Health-Sciences Education: A Commentary. Teaching and Learning in Medicine. 2005;17(1):85–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    MCAT Scores and GPAs for Applicant and Matriculants to US Medical Schools by Sex, 2002–2009. 2009. http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/applicantmatriculant/table23-mcatgpabysex09mat.pdf. Accessed December 22, 2009.
  22. 22.
    Age of Applicants to U.S. Medical Schools at Anticipated Matriculation by Sex and Race and Ethnicity. 2009. http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/applicantmatriculant/table6-facts2009age-web.pdf. Accessed December 22, 2009.
  23. 23.
    MCAT Scores and GPAs for Applicant and Matriculants to US Medical Schools, 1998–2009. 2009. http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/applicantmatriculant/table17-fact2009mcatgpa98-09-web.pdf. Accessed December 22, 2009.
  24. 24.
    Callahan CA, Hojat M, Veloski J, Erdmann JB, Gonnella JS. The Predictive Validity of Three Versions of the MCAT in Relations to Performance in Medical School, Residency, and Licensing Examinations: A Longitudinal Study of 36 classes of Jefferson Medical College. Academic Medicine. 2010;85(6):980–987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Colliver JA. Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula: research and theory. Academic Medicine. 2000;75(3):259–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vernon DT, Blake RL. Does problem-based learning work? A meta-analysis of evaluative research. Academic Medicine. 1993;68(7):550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kirschner PA, Sweller J, Clark RE. Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist. 2006;41(2):75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Donnon T, Paolucci EO, Violato C. The predictive validity of the MCAT for medical school performance and medical board licensing examinations: a meta-analysis of the published research. Academic Medicine. 2007;82(1):100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Julian ER. Validity of the Medical College Admission Test for predicting medical school performance. Academic Medicine. 2005;80(10):910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Prince M. Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education. 2004;93:223–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Donovan JJ, Radosevich DJ. A meta-analytic review of the distribution of practice effect: Now you see it, now you don’t. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1999;84(5):795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Larsen DP, Butler AC, Roediger HL III. Test enhanced learning in medical education. Medical Education. 2008;42(10):959–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Larsen DP, Butler AC, Roediger HL III. Repeated testing improves long term retention relative to repeated study: a randomised controlled trial. Medical Education. 2009;43(12):1174–1181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert K. Kamei
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sandy Cook
    • 2
  • Janil Puthucheary
    • 2
  • C. Frank Starmer
    • 1
  1. 1.Duke-National University of Singapore Graduate Medical SchoolSingapore and Duke University School of MedicineDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Duke-National University of Singapore Graduate Medical SchoolSingapore

Personalised recommendations