We saw some student preference for using TBL for review in our curriculum as well. In another new school, the faculty made the decision to use it for review rather than new material and came to the conclusion that it worked better – meaning they felt the review aspect fostered student engagement. I think this stems from both certain student factors as well as issues in faculty development in TBL Design and delivery. That said, I agree that it is best used to master material along the way. At least at our school, I think the student preference for using it as review results from: 1. The preference for lecture over reading for learning – we still have a large segment of learners who either do not like to read, or who are quite dependent on lecture as a means of deciphering what the faculty member emphasizes and is likely to test on in midterms/finals. The idea of any portion of their grade (the iRAT especially) will come straight from their ability to learn through reading is unsettling – especially for those who have gone through undergraduate educations run on binge and purge and powerpoint. Faculty can address some of this resistance through well written learning objectives that truly map to the TBL, reading/prep assignments that are well focused on those objectives and manageable from the standpoint of “deep reading”, and whenever possible offering different modalities of prep (pre-recorded lectures, reading, etc.). I have found that if you really “set students up for success” this way from the beginning, they will be willing to overcome their insecurities about being tested on material that was not “taught” to them in lecture. I highly recommend to our faculty the use of study guides – that include questions which they should try to answer through the reading/prep. 2. The lack of “definitive learning” that students unaccustomed to active learning (especially in large groups) feel they experience when listening largely to discussions between students. The other faculty behavior that I think can address this insecurity is providing periodic “wrap-up/main point” summaries of the longer discussions, and making sure to get students to rephrase (thereby repeating) the most important stuff or repeating it yourself. This can be important especially for the quieter students during large class discussions, who may be little or partially but certainly not uniformly heavily engaged in listening and who are may likely to leave the session feeling they have no definitive take home points. Carla Lupi, M.D., F.A.C.O.G. Assistant Dean for Learning and Teaching Associate Professor of Obstetrics & Gynecology Florida International University Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine 11200 SW 8th Street, AHC-2, Room 458 Miami, Florida 33199 From: Paul Koles <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Reply-To: Paul Koles <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 18:32:04 -0400 To: <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Subject: Re: Distribution of TBLs in the curriculum Colleagues: One advantage of TBLs scattered throughout the organ system modules is that students have opportunity and motivation to master specific domains of knowledge BEFORE the end of the course. They receive evidence from peers and faculty on how well they have learned during the readiness assurance tests, then learn how well they can apply the knowledge to solve problems during the application phase. This process reduces the amount of knowledge to be mastered at the end of the course, allowing them to more wisely allocate time to those domains that are not yet mastered. Paul On Apr 30, 2014, at 12:34 PM, Geiss, Roger wrote: It sounds like the students want the TBLs to be review sessions, which is not what they should be used for (forgive my ending the sentence with a preposition, but we do that in the Midwest). Roger Roger W. Geiss, M.D. Professor and Chair Department of Pathology University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria 1 Illini Drive Box 1649 Peoria, Illinois 61656-1649 Phone: 309-671-8440 Fax: 309-671-8434 E-mail: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> From: Team-Based Learning [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brescia, Bill Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 4:21 PM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Distribution of TBLs in the curriculum Greetings, We recently started our organ system modules. Each module is 4-5 weeks in length. Some of the students suggested the TBLs might be more useful to them if all the TBLs were at the end of the course rather than interspersed in the curriculum. Is anyone doing this? What are the positives/negatives? What are your lessons learned? Thanks, Bill---- _______________________ William Brescia, Ph.D. Director of Instructional Technology Associate Professor of Preventive Medicine Office of Medical Education University of Tennessee Health Science Center (UTHSC) 910 Madison Avenue, Room 1002 Memphis, TN 38163 901-448-6170 [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> This correspondence may be considered a public record and subject to public inspection pursuant to the Tennessee Public Records Act Paul G. Koles, MD Assoc. Professor of Pathology and Surgery Chair Pathology Boonshoft School of Medicine Wright State University 140 White Hall 3640 Colonel Glenn Highway Dayton, OH 45435-0001 937-775-2625 phone 937-775-2633 fax [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>