Scholarly Analysis of TBL

a group of pharmacy student smiles while working in the pharmacy lab on the Regis campus
a pair of lab partners smiles at each other while working in the pharmacy lab on the regis campus
a group of students gathered around a table with scattered supplies smile and talk
a group of students works in the simulation lab on the Regis campus. One student holds up a vial for the others to inspect while another takes notes on a laptop. A simulation dummy rests in the hospital bed nearby.
a pharmacy student talks to her lab partner as she measures a liquid in a beaker in the pharmacy lab on the Regis campus
a group of pharmacy students stands around a bed holding a simulation dummy and listens intently as their professor speaks in the simulation lab on the Regis campus.
a pharmacy student draws liquid from a vial into a syringe while her professor observes in the pharmacy lab on the Regis campus
pharmacy students sit around a table and discuss during a TBL session on the Regis campus
several groups of pharmacy students sit around tables and work during a TBL session on the Regis campus
Notable Quotes:

“Key benefits to this pedagogy are student engagement, improved communication skills, and enhanced critical-thinking abilities. In most cases student satisfaction and academic performance are also noted.”1

Notable Quotes:

“The cooperative nature of TBL inspires medical students to develop their communication and partnership skills, providing a beneficial learning experience.” 2

Notable Quote:

“There are 2 important realities in medical education: differentiating subtle differences between 2 diseases and being able to quickly diagnose the correct form of that disease suffered by a patient.3 These concepts translate directly to pharmacy education, as students need to recognize subtle differences among medications in pharmacotherapy practice and quickly apply that information to a patient.”

Notable Quote:

“In traditionally structured pharmacokinetics courses, the content is typically taught in a lecture-based format, with students subsequently using the content in either an applied pharmacokinetic course, therapeutics course, or during experiential training. Delaying students’ opportunity to learn how to use the content does not fit well with how adults learn best.3Adults tend to learn what is most immediately important to them because it is relevant and has high value; they consequently will pay minimal attention to information not perceived to be valuable based on lack of immediate relevance.4 Authentic problem-solving is one of the well-supported instructional techniques to promote critical thinking, as are step-by-step guided practice, structured collaboration, communication, and formative feedback.5 These are all components of team-based learning (TBL).”

Notable Quote:

“According to a 2011 survey by the National Association of Colleges and Employers, the top 5 skills desirable to future employers are verbal communication skills and the ability to make decisions, solve problems, plan and organize work, and obtain and process information.6 The 2010 survey tool included work ethic, initiative, interpersonal skills, and teamwork within their top 10 skills. These findings are congruent with the beliefs of pharmacy educators7 and current accreditation standards. TBL is 1 strategy that may facilitate student development of the skills necessary to meet the needs of the job market. This strategy also may address the aforementioned modalities to learn calculations, estimations, and concepts.”3

Notable Quote:

“Key benefits to this pedagogy are student engagement, improved communication skills, and enhanced critical-thinking abilities. In most cases student satisfaction and academic performance are also noted.”1

Notable Quote:

“As practitioners and faculty members responsible for teaching an endocrine course to third-year pharmacy students using a lecture-based approach, we became dissatisfied with the students' ability to think critically and apply information to patient cases during class and to live patient interactions during their advanced pharmacy practice experiences. We were concerned that we were developing passive learners dependent on faculty members to evaluate, synthesize, organize, package, and deliver information for them. How was this approach going to develop the “lifelong learners” required in the ACPE Accreditation Standards.”

Notable Quote:

“TBL advocates self-directed learning of course content and student application of this new knowledge within small collaborative teams and full classroom discussions; thus, promoting both low and high-level learning.8 TBL requires constant student preparation, attendance, and participation and gives students the opportunity to learn from their peers as well as how to work and negotiate within a team using features such as self- and peer evaluation.”

Notable Quote:

“Overall, students performed similarly or better on unit examinations and achieved higher grades in the course as a whole when it has been delivered in the TBL format. Notably, there were higher percentages (23% in 2006 compared to 9.5% for 2003) of students earning a letter grade of A and no students with failing grades (D or F) in the course after transitioning to the TBL format.”4

Supporting Data

bar chart depicting the following data: For each of the represented modules, Dynamics, Single Dose, Multiple Dose, Violations, Physiologic, there was a visible improvement in scores on the iRAT and gRAT.

There was significant improvement in the team scores for each module. The iRAT scores averaged over 80% for any given module (median 83%, average 86%, range 82%- 94%), whereas the gRAT scores averaged over 95% for any given module (median 97%, mean 97%, range 96%-98%)3

Figure 1. Comparison of individual and team quizzes from the readiness-assessment process. Data presented as mean and standard deviations. Abbreviations: iRAT = individual quiz; gRAT = team quiz. * p < 0.001.



Mean percentage change in scores was greater in the TBL versus the control group in post-test 1 (8.8% vs 4.3%, p = 0.023) and post-test 2 (11.4% vs 3.4%, p = 0.001). After adjustment for gender and second year examination grades, mean percentage change in scores remained greater in the TBL versus the control group for post-test 1 (10.3% vs 5.8%, mean difference 4.5%,95% CI 0.7 - 8.3%, p = 0.021) and post-test 2 (13.0% vs 4.9%, mean difference 8.1%,95% CI 3.7 - 12.5%, p = 0.001), indicating further score improvement 48 hours post-TBL.5

Figure 2

Line graph depicting the following data: Mean percentage change in test scores was the same at baseline but increased at a faster rate with a greater overall level of achievement for students who participated in TBL versus the control group.

Mean percentage change in test scores, adjusted for gender and second year examination grades.

Figure 3

Line graph depicting the following data: the adjusted mean percentage change in Mean percentage test scores was the same at baseline but increased at a faster rate with a greater overall level of achievement for students who participated in TBL versus the control group. “Weak” students in particular experienced significant gains.

Adjusted mean percentage change in test scores, strong vs weak students.

The 178 students (86 men, 92 women) included in the study achieved 5.9% (standard deviation [SD] 5.5) higher mean scores on examination questions that assessed their knowledge of pathology-based content learned using the TBL strategy compared with questions assessing pathology-based content learned via other methods (P < .001, t test). Students whose overall academic performance placed them in the lowest quartile of the class benefited more from TBL than did those in the highest quartile. Lowest-quartile students' mean scores were 7.9% (SD 6.0) higher on examination questions related to TBL modules than examination questions not related to TBL modules, whereas highest-quartile students' mean scores were 3.8% (SD 5.4) higher (P = .001, two-way analysis of variance).6



References

1Ofstad,W and Brunner, L; “Team-Based Learning in Pharmacy Education,” American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, May 13, 2013, v 77(4).

2Attia, R and Mandoor, A,”Team-based learning-adopted strategy in pharmacy education: pharmacology and medicinal chemistry students’ perceptions,” Future Journal of Pharmaceutical Science, Feb 23, 2023, v 9(1).

3Persky, A. M. (2012), “The impact of team-based learning on a foundational pharmacokinetics course,” American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 76(2), 31.

4Letassy, N. A., Fugate, S. E., Medina, M. S., Stroup, J. S., & Britton, M. L. (2008). “Using team-based learning in an endocrine module taught across two campuses,” American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, v.72(5); Oct 15, 2008.

5Tan, N. C., Kandiah, N., Chan, Y. H., Umapathi, T., Lee, S. H., & Tan, K. (2011), “ A controlled study of team-based learning for undergraduate clinical neurology education,” BMC Medical Education, 11, 91. 72(5).

6Koles, P. G., Stolfi, A., Borges, N. J., Nelson, S., & Parmelee, D. X. (2010), “The impact of team-based learning on medical students' academic performance,” Academic Medicine, 85(11), 1739-1745.

Drive the Future of Health Care