| Literature DB >> 31699081 |
Charles Okot Odongo1, Kristina Talbert-Slagle2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As far back as 1995, the Cape Town Declaration on training Africa's future doctor recognized the need for medical schools to adopt active-learning strategies in order to nurture holistic development of the doctor. However, medical education in Africa remains largely stuck with traditional pedagogies that emphasize the 'hard skills' such as knowledge and clinical acumen while doing little to develop 'soft skills' such as effective communication, teamwork, critical thinking or life-long learning skills. By reviewing literature on Africa's epidemiologic and demographic transitions, we establish the need for increasing the output of well-trained doctors in order to match the continent's complex current and future healthcare needs. Challenges that bedevil African medical education such as outdated curricula, limited educational infrastructure and chronic resource constraints are presented and discussed. Furthermore, increased student enrollments, a trend observed at many schools, coupled with chronic faculty shortages have inadvertently presented specific barriers against the success of small-group active-learning strategies such as Problem-Based and Case-Based Learning. We argue that Team-Based Learning (TBL) offers a robust alternative for delivering holistic medical education in the current setting. TBL is instructor-driven and embodies key attributes that foster development of both 'hard' and 'soft' skills. We elaborate on advantages that TBL is likely to bring to the African medical education landscape, including increased learner enthusiasm and creativity, accountability, peer mentorship, deep learning and better knowledge retention. As with all new pedagogical methods, challenges anticipated during initial implementation of TBL are discussed followed by the limited pilot experiences with TBL in Africa.Entities:
Keywords: Africa; Doctors; Medical schools; Pedagogy; Team-based learning
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31699081 PMCID: PMC6836381 DOI: 10.1186/s12909-019-1845-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Educ ISSN: 1472-6920 Impact factor: 2.463
Core design elements of Team-Based Learning showing their effects on learner engagement with content and peers
| Core design element | Rationale/TBL principle | Effect on learner engagement with content | Effect on learner engagement with peers |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Judicious team formation performed by instructor | Optimal team size and intellectual resources (brain power) to be distributed equally across teams. This does not typically occur when learners are allowed to form their own teams. | Teams with too few learners (e.g. less than 5) lack sufficient ‘intellectual assets’ to tackle complex problems; too many learners (e.g. more than 8) permits ‘social loafing’ | Team motivation to work together increases when learners believe their collective brain power matches that of other teams |
| 2. Readiness Assurance | Allows the instructor and team members to verify that all learners are prepared to apply course concepts to solve real-world, or complex tasks. | Individual and team accountability motivates learners to prepare by acquiring background knowledge before coming to class | During group discussions, learners teach each other, often using language that is more familiar than that of the instructor |
| 3. Immediate feedback | Immediate feedback enhances both individual learning and team communication processes by allowing teams to constantly assess the effectiveness of their problem-solving and communication strategies. | Obtaining answers to questions following the group test allows individual misconceptions to be clarified before they are entrenched | Reinforces to team members the value of collaboration. Also provides a disincentive for poor team communication behavior (e.g. poor listening or overassertiveness) |
| 4. Sequencing of in-class problem solving | Proper sequencing of activities- i.e. intrateam followed by interteam activities; enables learners to deepen their level of thinking and can positively affect the team development process | Multiple opportunities to discuss and apply knowledge to solve a problem fosters greater depth of engagement with course concepts and promotes long-term knowledge retention 46 | Interteam discussions solidify group identity and cohesiveness. Teams want to use their intrateam discussion time effectively to avoid embarrassment during interteam discussions |
| 5. The four Ss | Attention to the 4S structure (i.e. significant problem, same problem, specific choice, simultaneous reporting) fosters individual and team motivation, a common frame of reference, critical thinking and conceptual depth, and vigor during whole class discussions | A significant problem with real-life relevance increases interest during team discussions. Same problem for all teams increases interest during interteam discussions. The requirement to make a specific choice fosters conceptual depth in intra- and interteam discussions. | Simultaneous reporting of specific choice enhances recognition of controversy across teams. Constructive controversy across teams motivates collaboration within teams to defend points of view 41 |
| 6. Incentive structure | As in any teaching endeavor, the incentive structure has powerful effects on the achievement of course goals | Grading individual performance motivates out-of-class preparation | Grading team performance provides a clear incentive to maximize collaboration |
| 7. Peer evaluation | This is especially critical in a longitudinal TBL curriculum. Feedback from peers may have effects that other forms of feedback may not because peers have a unique relationship with each other as learners | The possibility of a negative review from peers motivates learners to prepare for and participate in class. Peer feedback also shapes specific learner behavior such as over assertiveness and collaboration | Promotes individual learners’ accountability to the team. It also reinforces the importance of every individual’s preparation and participation, as these affect overall team performance. |
(Adapted with permission from Haidet et al. [41])