The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Team‐based learning in a medical gross anatomy and embryology course
Open accessAbstract
The application of team‐based learning (TBL) as a major component of a medical gross anatomy course was evaluated. TBL is a method of small group instruction that addresses some of the shortcomings of other small‐group teaching approaches. The core components of TBL were instituted in 12 small group sessions in the course. Each session included objective‐oriented assignments, an individual readiness assurance test, a group readiness assurance test and a group application problem. Peer evaluation was carried out on a regular basis. Scores from TBL session activities and course examinations were analyzed and compared to previous years' course performance. Student course evaluation data and faculty feedback were also collected. Student evaluation data and faculty response indicated strong support for the TBL method as it was implemented in the course. Faculty noted improvements in students' day‐to‐day preparedness and group problem solving skills. Students' mean scores on exams were not significantly different from those of previous years. There was, however, a significantly smaller variance in examination scores that was reflected in a lower course failure rate compared to previous years. Correlation analyses of TBL and examination performance suggested that individual readiness assurance test performance is a good predictor of examination performance. TBL proved to be a superior method for small group learning in our anatomy course. Student performance suggested that TBL may most benefit academically at‐risk students who are forced to study more consistently, are provided regular feedback on their preparedness and given the opportunity to develop higher reasoning skills. Clin. Anat. 18:56–63, 2005. © 2004 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The Impact of Team-Based Learning on Medical Studentsʼ Academic Performance
Koles, P. G., Stolfi, A., Borges, N. J., Nelson, S., & Parmelee, D. X. (2010) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e3181f52bed · Cited by 498
Self-citationThe educational theory basis of team-based learning
Hrynchak, P., & Batty, H. (2012) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.3109/0142159x.2012.687120 · Cited by 310
Fatmi, M., Hartling, L., Hillier, T., Campbell, S., & Oswald, A. E. (2013) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.3109/0142159x.2013.849802 · Cited by 305
Reimschisel, T., Herring, A. L., Huang, J., & Minor, T. J. (2017) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2017.1340636 · Cited by 288
Zgheib, N. K., Simaan, J. A., & Sabra, R. (2010) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.3109/01421590903548521 · Cited by 173
Reliability and validity of student peer assessment in medical education: A systematic review
Speyer, R., Pilz, W., Van Der Kruis, J., & Brunings, J. W. (2011) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.3109/0142159x.2011.610835 · Cited by 123
Greetham, M., & Ippolito, K. (2018) · Higher Education Pedagogies · doi:10.1080/23752696.2018.1468224 · Cited by 24
Eppler, E., Meyer, J., Serowy, S., Link, K., Pauk, B., & Filgueira, L. (2021) · Research in Science Education · doi:10.1007/s11165-018-9795-7 · Cited by 17
Metadata
- Authors
- Nieder, G. L., Parmelee, D. X., Stolfi, A., & Hudes, P. D.
- Venue
- Clinical Anatomy
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-12-13
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 56-63
- ISSN
- 0897-3806 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-2353
- OpenAlex
- W2031501571
- Cited by
- 328
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 17.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.