The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The effectiveness of team-based learning on learning outcomes in health professions education: BEME Guide No. 30
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Team-Based Learning (TBL) is a student-centred active learning method, requiring less faculty time than other active learning methods. While TBL may have pedagogical value, individual studies present inconsistent findings. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of TBL on improving learning outcomes in health professions education. METHODS: A peer-reviewed systematic review protocol was registered with the Best Evidence in Medical Education (BEME) organization. After comprehensive literature searching, title and full-text review were completed by two independent reviewers. Included studies assessed TBL and a valid comparator in health professions. Included studies were assessed for methodological quality by two independent reviewers. Studies were categorised by outcomes using the Kirkpatrick framework. RESULTS: Of 330 screened titles, 14 were included. Seven studies reported significant increase in knowledge scores for the TBL group, four reported no difference and three showed improvement but did not comment on statistical significance. Only one study reported significant improvement in learner reaction for the TBL group while another study reported a significant difference favouring the comparator. CONCLUSIONS: Despite improvement in knowledge scores, there was mixed learner reaction. This may reflect the increased demands on learners in this student-centred teaching strategy, although further study is needed.
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
Cites
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research
Prince, M. (2004) · Journal of Engineering Education · doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x · Cited by 7,334 · cited 7×
“The author concluded that support can be found for all forms of active learning and provided some evidence to promote team-based, collaborative learning environments (Prince 2004).”
BackgroundInfluentialForsetlund, L., Bjørndal, A., Rashidian, A., Jamtvedt, G., O'Brien, M. A., Wolf, F. M., Davis, D., Odgaard-Jensen, J., & Oxman, A. D. (2009) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003030.pub2 · Cited by 1,849
Towards Rigor in Reviews of Multivocal Literatures: Applying the Exploratory Case Study Method
Ogawa, R. T., & Malen, B. (1991) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543061003265 · Cited by 247 · cited 1×
“The data were synthesized with guidance from methods described by Ogawa and Malen (1991) who have developed a method for synthesis based on the exploratory case study method.”
Method
Metadata
- Authors
- Fatmi, M., Hartling, L., Hillier, T., Campbell, S., & Oswald, A. E.
- Venue
- Medical Teacher
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2013-11-18
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- e1608-e1624
- ISSN
- 0142-159X (ISSN-L)
- 1466-187X
- OpenAlex
- W2151947725
- Cited by
- 305
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 73.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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.