21st Century Learning in Medicine: Traditional Teaching versus Team-based Learning
- 179 Downloads
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.
KeywordsBasic Science United States Medical Licensing Examinations Learning Strategies Pre-Clinical Curriculum Team Based Learning
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Ebbinghaus H, Ruger HA, Bussenius CE. Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology: Teachers College, Columbia University; 1913.Google Scholar
- 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.Johnson DW, Johnson RT, Smith KA. Cooperative learning returns to college: What evidence is there that it works? Change. 1998:26–35.Google Scholar
- 9.Lord TR. 101 reasons for using cooperative learning in biology teaching. The American Biology Teacher. 2001;63(1):30–38.Google Scholar
- 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.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
- 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
- 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.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.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.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