Advertisement

Team-based learning for teaching musculoskeletal ultrasound skills: a prospective randomised trial

  • Cassian Cremerius
  • Gertraud Gradl-Dietsch
  • Frank J. P. Beeres
  • Björn -Christian Link
  • Lea Hitpaß
  • Sven Nebelung
  • Klemens Horst
  • Christian David Weber
  • Carl Neuerburg
  • Daphne Eschbach
  • Christopher Bliemel
  • Matthias KnobeEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this prospective randomised trial was to assess the impact of the team-based learning approach on basic musculoskeletal ultrasound skills in comparison to both peer-assisted and conventional teaching and to examine the influence of gender and learning style on learning outcomes.

Methods

In this prospective randomised trial, we randomly assigned 88 students to 3 groups: team-based learning (n = 19), peer-assisted learning (n = 36) and conventional teaching (n = 33). Pre-existing knowledge was assessed using a multiple-choice (MC) exam. Student performance after completing the course was measured using an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) and a second MC exam. Students were asked to complete Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory and to evaluate the course.

Results

There was a significant gain in theoretical knowledge for all students (p < 0.001). The team-based learning groups’ performance proved to be significantly superior on the OSCE (p = 0.001). As gender had no significant effect on practical or theoretical performance, learning style was linked to differences in the practical outcome. An evaluation showed overall satisfaction with the course and with the respective teaching methods.

Conclusion

Team-based learning proved to be superior to peer-assisted and conventional teaching of musculoskeletal ultrasound skills.

Keywords

Team-based learning Peer teaching Medical education Ultrasound MSUS Objective structured clinical examination 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all the students who participated—without their enthusiasm and willingness, this study would not have been possible. The manuscript was proofread by Scribendi Inc., 405 Riverview Drive, Suite 304, Chatham ON, Canada.

Authors contribution

GGD, CC and MK had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. All authors meet all three of the requirements for authorship. BCL, FJPB, LH, SN, CDW, CN, DE, CB and KH were highly involved in the planning and execution of this study. CC organized the project to complete his medical thesis. Furthermore, GGD, CC, BCL, FJPB, LH, CDW, CN, DE, CB and SN were highly involved in the acquisition of data and in the process of data interpretation. KH, CDW, CN and CB made a significant contribution to the analysis and interpretation of the data. Furthermore, they took part in the manuscript review process and revised it critically. In this way, they provided important intellectual content in line with the study’s execution. MK acted as the initiator of the study and was highly involved in the advancement of the conception.

Funding

None.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Ethics approval

Institutional Review Board approval was granted before initiation of this study, and strict confidentiality guidelines were followed (Local Ethics Committee Reference Number EK 178/09).

Consent to participate

Participants provided informed written consent for the use of their results in this study and for publication at the time of enrolment.

Consent for publication

Written consent for publication was provided at the time of enrolment by the participants.

Supplementary material

68_2019_1298_MOESM1_ESM.docx (157 kb)
Supplementary file1 (DOCX 157 kb)
68_2019_1298_MOESM2_ESM.sav (124 kb)
Supplementary file2 (SAV 124 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Parmelee D, Michaelsen LK, Cook S, Hudes PD. Team-based learning: a practical guide: AMEE guide no 65. Med Teach. 2012;34(5):e275–287.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Remington TL, Bleske BE, Bartholomew T, Dorsch MP, Guthrie SK, Klein KC, Tingen JM, Wells TD. Qualitative analysis of student perceptions comparing team-based learning and traditional lecture in a pharmacotherapeutics course. Am J Pharm Educ. 2017;81(3):55.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jost M, Brustle P, Giesler M, Rijntjes M, Brich J. Effects of additional team-based learning on students' clinical reasoning skills: a pilot study. BMC Res Notes. 2017;10(1):282.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ozgonul L, Alimoglu MK. Comparison of lecture and team-based learning in medical ethics education. Nurs Ethics 2017:969733017731916.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Koles PG, Stolfi A, Borges NJ, Nelson S, Parmelee DX. The impact of team-based learning on medical students' academic performance. Acad Med. 2010;85(11):1739–45.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thomas PA, Bowen CW. A controlled trial of team-based learning in an ambulatory medicine clerkship for medical students. Teach Learn Med. 2011;23(1):31–6.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Punja D, Kalludi SN, Pai KM, Rao RK, Dhar M. Team-based learning as a teaching strategy for first-year medical students. Australas Med J. 2014;7(12):490–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bouw JW, Gupta V, Hincapie AL. Assessment of students' satisfaction with a student-led team-based learning course. J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2015;12:23.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jafari Z. A comparison of conventional lecture and team-based learning methods in terms of student learning and teaching satisfaction. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2014;28:5.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Livingston B, Lundy M, Harrington S. Physical therapy students' perceptions of team-based learning in gross anatomy using the team-based learning student assessment instrument. J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2014;11:1.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ghorbani N, Karbalay-Doust S, Noorafshan A. Is a team-based learning approach to anatomy teaching superior to didactic lecturing? Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2014;14(1):e120–125.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huitt TW, Killins A, Brooks WS. Team-based learning in the gross anatomy laboratory improves academic performance and students' attitudes toward teamwork. Anat Sci Educ. 2015;8(2):95–103.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Knobe M, Munker R, Sellei RM, Holschen M, Mooij SC, Rohlfing B, Niethard FU, Pape HC. Peer teaching: a randomised controlled trial using student–teachers to teach musculoskeletal ultrasound. Med Educ. 2010;44(2):148–55.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Knobe M, Sellei RM, Maus U, Mooij SC, Gradl G, Sopka S, Niethard FU, Pape HC. Undergraduate curricular training in musculoskeletal ultrasound: the impact of preexisting anatomic knowledge. Z Orthop Unfall. 2010;148(6):685–90.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Knobe M, Carow JB, Ruesseler M, Leu BM, Simon M, Beckers SK, Ghassemi A, Sonmez TT, Pape HC. Arthroscopy or ultrasound in undergraduate anatomy education: a randomized cross-over controlled trial. BMC Med Educ. 2012;12:85.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gradl-Dietsch G, Korden T, Modabber A, Sonmez TT, Stromps JP, Ganse B, Pape HC, Knobe M. Multidimensional approach to teaching anatomy—Do gender and learning style matter? Ann Anat. 2016;208:158–64.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hudson JN, Tonkin AL. Clinical skills education: outcomes of relationships between junior medical students, senior peers and simulated patients. Med Educ. 2008;42(9):901–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Field M, Burke JM, McAllister D, Lloyd DM. Peer-assisted learning: a novel approach to clinical skills learning for medical students. Med Educ. 2007;41(4):411–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gradl G, Buhren A, Simon M, Derntl B, Pape HC, Knobe M. Bootcamp: longitudinal gender-based surgical and clinical skills training. Unfallchirurg. 2017;120(1):46–544.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sarabi-Asiabar A, Jafari M, Sadeghifar J, Tofighi S, Zaboli R, Peyman H, Salimi M, Shams L. The relationship between learning style preferences and gender, educational major and status in first year medical students: a survey study from iran. Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2015;17(1):e18250.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nuzhat A, Salem RO, Hamdan N, Ashour N. Gender differences in learning styles and academic performance of medical students in Saudi Arabia. Med Teach. 2013;35(1):S78–82.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mooij SC, Antony P, Ruesseler M, Pfeifer R, Drescher W, Simon M, Pape HC, Knobe M. Gender-specific evaluation of student's career planning during medical study in terms of orthopaedic trauma. Z Orthop Unfall. 2011;149(4):389–94.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kolb A, Kolb D. The kolb learning style inventory—version 3.1 2005 technical specifi cations; 2005.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Krautter M, Weyrich P, Schultz JH, Buss SJ, Maatouk I, Junger J, Nikendei C. Effects of Peyton's four-step approach on objective performance measures in technical skills training: a controlled trial. Teach Learn Med. 2011;23(3):244–50.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gradl-Dietsch G, Menon AK, Gursel A, Gotzenich A, Hatam N, Aljalloud A, Schrading S, Holzl F, Knobe M. Basic echocardiography for undergraduate students: a comparison of different peer-teaching approaches. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2017;44:143–52.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Smith MK, David A. Kolb on experiential learning. the encyclopedia of informal education [https://infed.org/mobi/david-a-kolb-on-experiential-learning/ retrieved: May 1st 2019]
  27. 27.
    Bland JM, Altman DG. Cronbach's alpha. BMJ. 1997;314(7080):572.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Weyrich P, Celebi N, Schrauth M, Moltner A, -Koppel M, Nikendei C. Peer-assisted versus faculty staff-led skills laboratory training: a randomised controlled trial. Med Educ. 2009;43(2):113–20.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Celebi N, Zwirner K, Lischner U, Bauder M, Ditthard K, Schurger S, Riessen R, Engel C, Balletshofer B, Weyrich P. Student tutors are able to teach basic sonographic anatomy effectively - a prospective randomized controlled trial. Ultraschall Med. 2012;33(2):141–5.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    de Casasola G, Sanchez G, Peinado D, Gollarte A, Aceituno E, Pena Vazquez I, Torres Macho J. Teaching of clinical ultrasonography to undergraduates: students as mentors. Rev Clin Esp. 2015;215(4):211–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dickerson J, Paul K, Vila P, Whiticar R. The role for peer-assisted ultrasound teaching in medical school. Clin Teach. 2017;14(3):170–4.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chen M, Ni C, Hu Y, Wang M, Liu L, Ji X, Chu H, Wu W, Lu C, Wang S, et al. Meta-analysis on the effectiveness of team-based learning on medical education in China. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(1):77.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Langdorf MI, Anderson CL, Navarro RE, Strom S, McCoy CE, Youm J, -Wong MF. Comparing the results of written testing for advanced cardiac life support teaching using team-based learning and the "flipped classroom" strategy. Cureus. 2018;10(5):e2574.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wammes JD, Meade ME, Fernandes MA. The drawing effect: Evidence for reliable and robust memory benefits in free recall. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2016;69(9):1752–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Knobe M, Holschen M, Mooij SC, Sellei RM, Munker R, Antony P, Pfeifer R, Drescher W, Pape HC. Knowledge transfer of spinal manipulation skills by student–teachers: a randomised controlled trial. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(5):992–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    McKenzie S, Burgess A, Mellis C. Interns reflect: the effect of formative assessment with feedback during pre-internship. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2017;8:51–6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bosse HM, Mohr J, Buss B, Krautter M, Weyrich P, Herzog W, Junger J, Nikendei C. The benefit of repetitive skills training and frequency of expert feedback in the early acquisition of procedural skills. BMC Med Educ. 2015;15:22.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Oldland E, Currey J, Considine J, Allen J. Nurses' perceptions of the impact of team-based learning participation on learning style, team behaviours and clinical performance: an exploration of written reflections. Nurse Educ Pract. 2017;24:62–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Guillot A, Champely S, Batier C, Thiriet P, Collet C. Relationship between spatial abilities, mental rotation and functional anatomy learning. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2007;12(4):491–507.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Garg AX, Norman G, Sperotable L. How medical students learn spatial anatomy. Lancet. 2001;357(9253):363–4.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Szczepanik AM, Spieszny M, Klocek T, Szczepanik M, Goroszeniuk D, Kubisz A, Kulig J. Motor coordination assessment in practicing surgeons and medical students. Acta Chir Belg. 2010;110(3):317–22.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bhalli MA, Khan IA, Sattar A. Learning style of medical students and its correlation with preferred teaching methodologies and academic achievement. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2015;27(4):837–42.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Osseini SM, Amery H, Emadzadeh A, Babazadeh S. Dental students' educational achievement in relation to their learning styles: a cross-sectional study in Iran. Glob J Health Sci. 2015;7(5):152–8.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Syperda VA, Trivedi PN, Melo LC, Freeman ML, Ledermann EJ, Smith TM, Alben JO. Ultrasonography in preclinical education: a pilot study. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2008;108(10):601–5.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Frame TR, Cailor SM, Gryka RJ, Chen AM, Kiersma ME, Sheppard L. Student perceptions of team-based learning vs traditional lecture-based learning. Am J Pharm Educ. 2015;79(4):51.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cassian Cremerius
    • 1
  • Gertraud Gradl-Dietsch
    • 2
  • Frank J. P. Beeres
    • 3
  • Björn -Christian Link
    • 3
  • Lea Hitpaß
    • 4
  • Sven Nebelung
    • 4
  • Klemens Horst
    • 5
  • Christian David Weber
    • 5
  • Carl Neuerburg
    • 6
  • Daphne Eschbach
    • 7
  • Christopher Bliemel
    • 7
  • Matthias Knobe
    • 3
    • 5
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyMarienhospital AachenAachenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, LVR ClinicUniversity of EssenEssenGermany
  3. 3.Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma SurgeryLucerne Cantonal HospitalLucerneSwitzerland
  4. 4.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical FacultyRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany
  5. 5.Department of Orthopaedic Trauma, Medical FacultyRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany
  6. 6.Department for General, Trauma and Reconstructive SurgeryLudwig Maximilian University MunichMunichGermany
  7. 7.Center for Orthopaedics and Trauma SurgeryUniversity Hospital Giessen and Marburg GmbHMarburgGermany

Personalised recommendations