Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSterpu, Irene
dc.contributor.authorHerling, Lotta
dc.contributor.authorNordquist, Jonas
dc.contributor.authorMöller, Anna
dc.contributor.authorKopp Kallner, Helena
dc.contributor.authorEngberg, Hedvig
dc.contributor.authorAcharya, Ganesh Prasad
dc.date.accessioned2024-08-29T11:30:38Z
dc.date.available2024-08-29T11:30:38Z
dc.date.issued2024-02-17
dc.description.abstractIntroduction - Team-based learning (TBL) is a well-established active teaching method which has been shown to have pedagogical advantages in some areas such as business education and preclinical disciplines in undergraduate medical education. Increasingly, it has been adapted to clinical disciplines. However, its superiority over conventional learning methods used in clinical years of medical school remains unclear. The aim of this study was to compare TBL with traditional seminars delivered in small group interactive learning (SIL) format in terms of knowledge acquisition and retention, satisfaction and engagement of undergraduate medical students during the 6-week obstetrics and gynecology clerkship.<p> <p>Material and methods - The study was conducted at Karolinska Institutet, a medical university in Sweden, and had a prospective, crossover design. All fifth-year medical students attending the obstetrics and gynecology clerkship, at four different teaching hospitals in Stockholm (approximately 40 students per site), in the Autumn semester of 2022 were invited to participate. Two seminars (one in obstetrics and one in gynecology) were designed and delivered in two different formats, ie TBL and SIL. The student:teacher ratio was approximately 10:1 in the traditional SIL seminars and 20:1 in the TBL. All TBL seminars were facilitated by a single teacher who had been trained and certified in TBL. Student knowledge acquisition and retention were assessed by final examination scores, and the engagement and satisfaction were assessed by questionnaires. For the TBL seminars, individual and team readiness assurance tests were also performed and evaluated.<p> <p>Results - Of 148 students participating in the classrooms, 132 answered the questionnaires. No statistically significant differences were observed between TBL and SIL methods with regard to student knowledge acquisition and retention, engagement and satisfaction.<p> <p>Conclusions - We found no differences in student learning outcomes or satisfaction using TBL or SIL methods. However, as TBL had a double the student to teacher ratio as compared with SIL, in settings where teachers are scarce and suitable rooms are available for TBL sessions, the method may be beneficial in reducing faculty workload without compromising students' learning outcomes.en_US
dc.identifier.citationSterpu, Herling, Nordquist, Möller, Kopp Kallner, Engberg, Acharya. The outcomes of team-based learning versus small group interactive learning in the obstetrics and gynecology course for undergraduate students. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2024
dc.identifier.cristinIDFRIDAID 2257927
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/aogs.14804
dc.identifier.issn0001-6349
dc.identifier.issn1600-0412
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10037/34465
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherWileyen_US
dc.relation.journalActa Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica
dc.rights.holderCopyright 2024 The Author(s)en_US
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0en_US
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)en_US
dc.titleThe outcomes of team-based learning versus small group interactive learning in the obstetrics and gynecology course for undergraduate studentsen_US
dc.type.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typeTidsskriftartikkelen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US


File(s) in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)