PURPOSE: In 2003, we described initial use of team-based learning (TBL) at 10 medical schools. The purpose of the present study was to review progress and understand factors affecting the use of TBL at these schools during the subsequent 2 years. METHODS: Representatives from 10 schools evaluated in 2003 were again evaluated in 2005. They were interviewed by members of the Team Based Learning Collaborative using a semistructured interview process. Data were analysed by 2 researchers using the constant comparative method and were triangulated through sharing results with other interviewers at regular intervals to verify conclusions and form consensus. RESULTS: TBL continued to be used in all but 1 school. At the 9 remaining schools, TBL was added to 18 courses, continued to be used in 19 and was discontinued in 13 courses. At some schools, it was discontinued in single courses in lieu of new, longitudinal integration courses in which TBL was a main instructional strategy. Faculty, student, course and institutional factors were associated with changes in TBL use. CONCLUSION: Faculty, administration/curriculum, students and characteristics of specific courses influence ongoing utilisation of TBL. Those who desire to implement TBL would do well to take these factors into account as they plan implementation efforts at their schools.
PURPOSE: In 2003, we described initial use of team-based learning (TBL) at 10 medical schools. The purpose of the present study was to review progress and understand factors affecting the use of TBL at these schools during the subsequent 2 years. METHODS: Representatives from 10 schools evaluated in 2003 were again evaluated in 2005. They were interviewed by members of the Team Based Learning Collaborative using a semistructured interview process. Data were analysed by 2 researchers using the constant comparative method and were triangulated through sharing results with other interviewers at regular intervals to verify conclusions and form consensus. RESULTS:TBL continued to be used in all but 1 school. At the 9 remaining schools, TBL was added to 18 courses, continued to be used in 19 and was discontinued in 13 courses. At some schools, it was discontinued in single courses in lieu of new, longitudinal integration courses in which TBL was a main instructional strategy. Faculty, student, course and institutional factors were associated with changes in TBL use. CONCLUSION: Faculty, administration/curriculum, students and characteristics of specific courses influence ongoing utilisation of TBL. Those who desire to implement TBL would do well to take these factors into account as they plan implementation efforts at their schools.
Authors: Rondall E Allen; Jeffrey Copeland; Andrea S Franks; Reza Karimi; Marianne McCollum; David J Riese; Anne Y F Lin Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2013-08-12 Impact factor: 2.047
Authors: Stuart J Beatty; Katherine A Kelley; Anne H Metzger; Katherine L Bellebaum; James W McAuley Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2009-10-01 Impact factor: 2.047
Authors: Michelle M Zingone; Andrea S Franks; Alexander B Guirguis; Christa M George; Amanda Howard-Thompson; Robert E Heidel Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2010-11-10 Impact factor: 2.047
Authors: Tracy R Frame; Stephanie M Cailor; Rebecca J Gryka; Aleda M Chen; Mary E Kiersma; Lorin Sheppard Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2015-05-25 Impact factor: 2.047