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
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
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]
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