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