Premium
Successes and Pitfalls of Teaching Medical Gross Anatomy Via Only Team‐Based Learning and Lab
Author(s) -
Hoagland Todd M
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.27.1_supplement.15.3
Subject(s) - mentorship , summative assessment , team based learning , medical education , curriculum , grading (engineering) , student engagement , medicine , psychology , mathematics education , pedagogy , formative assessment , engineering , civil engineering
In 2010 a Pilot Integrated Curriculum (PIC) for 28 of 204 students began and every teaching engagement was via Team‐Based Learning (TBL) or lab. This was a radical change from the lecture‐based traditional curriculum. The PIC students have taken the USMLE Step 1, NBME shelf, and departmental exams, and are now in M3 clinical clerkships. The power of TBL was evident, although faculty members struggled to master the new pedagogical approach. Some positive outcomes included: potent faculty development, superb early student mentorship, improved student problem solving skills, more active/interactive/proactive student learning, increased collaboration, and improved curriculum integration. Some challenges included: a significant increase in upfront work, coordinating activities of numerous basic scientists and clinicians from many different departments, covering the breadth of the discipline using only TBL, grading, and preventing the erosion of faculty morale. The presentation will compare students’ performances in the PIC versus traditional curriculum on numerous summative examinations. Additionally, narrative comments by students and faculty members from periodic appreciative inquiry reviews and weekly evaluations will be used to highlight important outcomes. Overall, TBL is effective when done well, and faculty development is essential for maximizing educational outcomes.