Dear All,
I am reading with interest all the posts on comparisons and queries
regarding TBL, PBL and other learning methodologies etc.
Having had the experience of going through a very "traditional" medical
curriculum and later on in PBL setting as a postgrad student and currently
through quite an extensive exposure to TBL as a professional, I feel each
system has it's strengths and weaknesses. Whether a particular system will
or will not work depends on the ground situation such as the learning
environment which it is applied, resource availability, most importantly the
training given to teachers & students on these particular method/s.
Therefore, it is not wise to compare and contrast these methods out of
context and or apply them without properly understanding how they will
augment one's learning - teaching environment. Thanks.
Dujeepa
*Dujeepa D. Samarasekera** (Dr)*:: Deputy Head, Medical Education Unit,
Dean's Office, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine :: National University of
Singapore :: MD11 #01-08, Clinical Research Centre, 10 Medical Drive,
Singapore 117597 :: 65-65163760 (DID):: 65-68721454 (Fax)::
[log in to unmask] (E) :: www.nus.edu.sg (W)
2009/5/13 Sweet, Michael S <[log in to unmask]>
> My “elevator speech” on the difference between PBL and TBL is that they
> include many of the same pieces, but are just “reversed.”
>
>
>
> By this I mean that in PBL students are given a complex problem FIRST and
> then have to go off on their own and figure what material they need to
> master in order to solve it.
>
>
>
> However in TBL, students are FIRST provided a socio-intellectually powerful
> set of activities to help them master the necessary material and THEN are
> giving complex problems upon which to apply to apply that material. This is
> more consistent with the notion of instructional “scaffolding”.
>
>
>
> Also, TBL is much more scalable to very large classes than PBL (in the way
> that PBL is traditionally done with facilitators for each group).
>
>
>
> -M
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Team-Based Learning [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On
> Behalf Of *Sibley, Jim
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 13, 2009 9:01 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: TBL in the NY Times, Five Questions
>
>
>
> Hi Richard/Sandy
>
>
>
> Another few differences between PBL and TBL
>
>
>
> 1) PBL has an information literacy piece where students go off with
> their learning issues, do independent research and come back to the group
> and integrate what they find…..TBL does have this except with careful design
>
>
>
> 2) In PBL is facilitator only….never expert…..in TBL you can step
> into the role of expert at appropriate times to aid student learning…..a lot
> of faculty are uncomfortable completely shedding the role of expert that PBL
> requires
>
>
>
> Jim
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Team-Based Learning [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On
> Behalf Of *Sandy Cook
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 12, 2009 10:55 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: TBL in the NY Times, Five Questions
>
>
>
> Dear Richard,
>
>
>
> I guess I can answer two of your questions to the TeamLearning listserv,
> being the Associate Dean for Curriculum at the Duke-NUS Graduate Medical
> School Singapore.
>
>
>
> · Does anyone know what evidence supports Kamei's statement "Our
> first class did extraordinarily well using this method" as quoted above by
> Kolesnikov-Jessop?
>
>
>
> We are in our 2nd year of existence. We have 26 2nd year students and 48
> 1st year students. Our results are quite preliminary, thus not yet
> published, but are encouraging. As background, we are delivering,
> essentially the traditional, often lecture based, Duke Curriculum using TBL
> exclusively in the 1st year basic sciences course; using some adapted
> versions of TBL in the 2nd year clinical teaching; hoping that lessons
> learned will apply for our students as they engage in their 3rd year
> research; and will be encouraging more TBL for 4th year return to clinical
> activities. We will be publishing as we move forward with this adventure,
> but are clearly not yet ready for prime-time.
>
>
>
> Essentially, we start with the course and content structure from Duke and
> use their recorded lectures as the preparatory material. We have developed
> over 70 TBL sessions to provide the students with an active learning
> environment critically reviewing and discussing the principles set forth in
> the basic science lectures. We have used similar assessments as Duke (both
> in teacher made course exams and NBME Comprehensive Basic Science Exam
> (CBSE), Clinical Subject Exams) so that we can at least bench mark our
> performance to Duke Students. We also are measuring students’ attitudes on
> some environmental issues using the Dundee Ready Educational Environment
> Measure (DREEM). We will be measuring our students on their performance on
> the USMLE Step 1 and Step 2CK and would welcome any other thoughts on tools
> and measures to use to explore the impact of this learning strategy.
>
>
>
> So, the statement by Dr. Kamei is based on the fact that our first group of
> 26 students performed similarly as the Duke Students on the faculty
> developed assessments yet when they took the CBSE exam, as did Duke
> students, at end of 1st year, without any study time (or encouragement
> even – but asked to use it diagnostically to see where their gaps were), Our
> students’ mean was statistically higher in comparison to Duke Students
> (n=100). Clearly there is lots of room for discussion on the validity of
> the comparison and limitations (from Halo effect to non comparable samples),
> which is why we are not yet ready to publish. We hope to be able to
> replicate the results in July when our current 48 first year class takes the
> CBSE for first time; and explore sustainability with the original group as
> they take CBSE for 2nd time. We acknowledge that this is only a small
> component of assessing impact and believe it is more than the knowledge that
> we will be influencing.
>
>
>
> To our advantage, we have a natural control group at Duke who is not (yet)
> using this methodology, and provides us with ample opportunity to make
> interesting comparisons. Randomized Pre/Post is not exactly possible here,
> but we still think we have a good opportunity for learning some great things
> about this strategy.
>
>
>
>
>
> · What's the difference between TBL and PBL?
>
>
>
> I’m certain others can and have responded to this in more detail, but from
> our perspective the major differences are:
>
> · Students in TBL are closely guided ahead of time (with direction
> from faculty/material) on what they need to know to solve the ‘problem’ they
> are given (or application in TBL terms) rather than using discovery
> learning. I should note that it is not a statement of “good” or “bad” about
> discovery learning – but just a different approach. It was more efficient
> for us to tell the students what to prepare rather than take the time to
> enable them to discover what they needed.
>
> · Students come prepared (on this prep material) and are held
> accountable for that preparation in their grades through individual
> assessments; however, it is followed by group assessments on same material
> to further enhance learning. Just-in time learning- they are primed to
> learn based on their own individual struggles.
>
> · All the teams are in the same room, so there are fewer
> facilitators needed and the facilitation engages all teams, so there is the
> same experience and similar closure on sessions for all students. Which was
> critical for us as our faculty size is very limited compared to a
> traditional medical school.
>
> · All the problems are done in class so there are less group
> dynamic problems with someone doing part of the work for the group and
> individuals riding only on the group work.
>
>
>
> There are probably many others, but these are the four key ones that we
> felt were important factors that influenced our decision to us this strategy
> over PBL.
>
>
>
> Sandy
>
>
>
>
>
> ********************************************************
>
> WE HAVE CHANGED OUR EMAIL ADDRESS - PLEASE CHANGE TO
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Sandy COOK, PhD | Associate Dean, Curriculum Development | Duke-NUS
> Graduate Medical School Singapore | Khoo Teck Puat Building | 8 College Road
>
>
> Singapore |169857 | W: (65) 6516 8722| F: (65) 6227 2698 | email:
> [log in to unmask] | web: http://www.duke-nus.edu.sg;
>
>
>
> Administrative Executive: Belinda Yeo | [log in to unmask] |
> 6516-8511
>
>
>
> Important: This email is confidential and may be privileged. If you are
> not the intended recipient, please delete it and notify us immediately; you
> should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any
> other person. Thank you.
>
>
>
>
>
--
"The only person who is educated is the one who has learned how to learn and
change." -- Carl Rogers
|
