Teaching Approach to Tachycardia and Bradycardia in Medical Students: A Quasi-Experimental Study to Compare Team-Based Learning and Lecture Method
Introduction: It is crucial to find ways to improve the durability of learning in clinical units. One of these methods is team-based learning (TBL). This learning method is active and students must study the subject before the session. Objective: This study examined TBL and compared it with conventional lecture method (LM) in an educational approach to tachycardia and bradycardia in adult patients. Method: In this quasi-experimental study, medical students (interns) were randomly divided into two groups of TBL and LM. Two faculty members of emergency medicine were responsible for teaching in both LM and TBL groups. Data collection tool was a checklist including demographic information and a researcher-made questionnaire for assessing knowledge about tachycardia and bradycardia in adult patients. Two sets of questions with the same difficulty were designed to be used for pre-test and post-test. Both groups completed pre-test and post-test, which were finally compared. Results: Totally 65 medical interns with the mean age of 28.75±2.26 years were participated of whom 37 persons (56.9%) were female. There was no significant difference in terms of the mean age of the participants in the two groups (p=0.914). The two groups were also matched in terms of male/female ratio (p=0.416). There was no significant difference between TBL and LM groups regarding pre-test score (p=0.935). However, they were significantly different in post-test (p=0.001) when TBL group scored higher than the LM group. Conclusion: Based on the research findings, it seems that TBL was more effective than LM on students' understanding of approach to tachycardia and bradycardia in adult patients.
2. Hills H. Team-based learning. Gower Publishing, Ltd.; 2001.
3. Michaelsen LK, Parmelee DX, McMahon KK, Levine RE. Team-Based Learning for Health Professions Education: A Guide to Using Small Groups. Stylus Publishing LLC, Sterling, USA; 2007.
4. Haidet P, Fecile ML. Team-based learning: a promising strategy to foster active learning in cancer education. J Cancer Edu. 2006;21(3):125-8.
5. Michaelsen LK, Knight AB, Fink LD. Team-based learning: A transformative use of small groups in college teaching. New York: Praeger; 2002.
6. Jaarsma AD, de Grave WS, Muijtjens AM, Scherpbier AJ, van Beukelen P. Perceptions of learning as a function of seminar group factors. Med Educ. 2008;42(12):1178-84.
7. De Grave WS, Schmidt HG, Boshuizen HP. Effects of problem-based discussion on studying a subsequent text: A randomized trial among first year medical students. Instr Sci. 2001;29(1):33-44.
8. Kassab S, Abu-Hijleh MF, Al-Shboul Q, Hamdy H. Student-led tutorials in problem-based learning: educational outcomes and students' perceptions. Med Teach. 2005 Sep;27(6):521-6.
9. Zareie F, Maghsoodi E, Ghaderian KH, Aliaghaie A. The effect of the implementation of team-based earning (TBL) on learning diabetes course in nursing students. J Urmia Nurs Midwifery Fac. 2018;15(10):743-51.
10. Bahador H, Feizi A, Nabizadeh M. A study on the midwifery student's perception of the children’s care course by using team-based learning in coparison with conventional learning. J Urmia Nurs Midwifery Fac. 2015;13(6):525-34.
11. Jafari Z. A comparison of conventional lecture and team-based learning methods in terms of student learning and teaching satisfaction. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2014;28:5.
12. Zeheib NK, Simaan JA, Sabra R. Using team-based learning to teach pharmacology to second year medical students improves student performance. Med Teach. 2010;32(2):130-5.
13. Vaezi AA, Azizian F, Kouhpayehzadeh J. Survey compare team based learning and lecture teaching method, on learning-teaching process nursing student's, in surgical and internal diseases course. J Med Educ Develop. 2015;10(3):246-54.
14. Hassanzadeh G, Abolhasani F, Mirzazadeh A, Alizadeh M. Team-based learning; a new strategy in integrated medical curriculum: the experience of school of medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Iran J Med Educ. 2013;13(7):601-10.
15. Wiener H, Plass H, Marz R. Team-based learning in intensive course format for first-year medical students. Croatian Med J. 2009;50(1):69-76.
16. Cheng CY, Liou SR, Tsai HM, Chang CH. The effects of Team-Based Learning on learning behaviors in the maternal-child nursing course. Nurse Educ Today. 2014;34(1):25-30.
17. Nieder GL, Parmelee DX, Stolfi A, Hudes PD. Team‐based learning in a medical gross anatomy and embryology course. Clin Anat. 2005;18(1):56-63.
18. Koles P, Nelson S, Stolfi A, Parmelee D, DeStephen D. Active learning in a year 2 pathology curriculum. Med Educ. 2005;39(10):1045-55.
19. Parmelee DX, DeStephen D, Borges NJ. Medical students’ attitudes about team-based learning in a pre-clinical curriculum. Med Educ Online. 2009;14:1.
20. Schiller SZ. Practicing learner-centered teaching: Pedagogical design and assessment of a Second Life project. J Info Sys Educ. 2009;20(3):369-81.
21. Sabouri Shahrbabak S, Dehghani M. Comparison of Team-Based Learning and Lecturing Methods in Pharmacological Biotechnology for Pharmacology Students. Strides Dev Med Educ. 2017;14(2):e64093
22. Vasan NS, DeFouw DO, Holland BK. Modified use of team‐based learning for effective delivery of medical gross anatomy and embryology. Anat Sci Educ. 2008 Jan;1(1):3-9.
23. Levine R, O’Boyle M, Haidet P. Transforming a clinical clerkship with team learning. Teach Learn Med 2004;16(3):270-5.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.