No / As a domain of knowledge for healthcare professionals, palliative care is complex and demanding; not least for educators. Effective teaching in palliative care relies on educators both being able to develop and encourage interpersonal skills, and also to capture an authentic sense of the real world in teaching clinical aspects of care. The recommendations of the Francis Report present a challenge to educators: how do we "educate" (literally, "to develop the faculties and powers of") the palliative care providers of the future? How do we ensure they are competent, compassionate communicators? Team-based learning is currently being piloted in at the University of Bradford as a means of achieving these goals. This technique, developed by Larry Michaelson and colleagues in the United States, uses sound pedagogical principles to encourage debate and dissent between small teams related to complex and ambiguous areas of knowledge. The role of the educator is to guide and facilitate discussion, and challenge preconceptions and assumptions. There is minimal use of lectures other than to consolidate conclusions. It was decided to pilot the technique within the palliative care content of the curriculum, because of the opportunities to develop students skills of critical thinking, awareness and compassion. Initial analysis of questionnaire and focus group data within Bradford is overwhelmingly in support; students are demonstrating evidence of increased critical thinking, more effective teamwork, evolving listening skills, and satisfaction at learning in a way which they perceive to be much more akin to clinical practice than didactic lectures and seminars. This presentation will look at the structure of team-based learning, review the evidence, and examine how it was applied specifically to palliative care using scenarios based on Patient Journeys in the last year of life. The opportunities for its use in clinical, interprofessional and post-registration palliative care education will be explored.

Yes / Team-Based Learning (TBL) is a collaborative learning model that refocuses classroom time to solving relevant problems instead of dispensing information. This is accomplished by a pre-class readiness assurance process that promotes accountability to self-directed learning and teamwork. While research related to the student experience with TBL is present in the literature, there is a relative lack of research published on the experiences of academic staff with TBL. Using a qualitative approach and a semi-structured interview format, this study explored the experiences of 26 academic staff in the UK who implemented TBL using a semi-structured interview format. Thematic analysis of interview text yielded five themes related to curriculum design, student outcomes, and the professional development of academic staff. / Supported by a grant from the Regis University Research and Scholarship Council.

Yes / Team-based Learning (TBL) is a new teaching strategy that may take small group learning to a new level of effectiveness. TBL shifts the focus from content delivery by teachers to the application of course content by student teams. Teams work on authentic problems, make collaborative decisions, and develop problem-solving skills required in their future workplace. Prior to redesigning the MPharm programme according to TBL principles, several pilots were set up to research how students responded to this new way of teaching. One pilot focussed on the introduction of TBL as a phenomena and aimed to find out if and how TBL engaged students, how students were held accountable by their teams, and more importantly how that affected their lifeworld. Ashworth’s lifeworld contingencies provided the theoretical framework as it ranges from students’ selfhood, embodiment and social interactions to their ability to carry out tasks they are committed to and regard as essential (Ashworth, 2003).

Yes / Team-based learning is an active learning strategy that focuses on student’s engagement, development of critical thinking, and transferable skills needed in the workplace. While many pharmacy faculties around the world have applied team-based learning into their curriculums, the implementation of team-based learning into the Middle East is still in the experimental phase and poses its own challenges. This reflective statement elaborates on our experience and feedback of implementing team-based learning for the first time at the pharmacy faculty of Zarqa University in Jordan through the delivery of over-the-counter module.

Team-based learning (TBL) is one strategy for improving team-work and critical thinking skills. It has proven to be an engaging teaching pedagogy in face-to-face classes, however, to our knowledge, has never been implemented online in a 3-D virtual world. We implemented virtual TBLs in an online undergraduate anatomy course using Second LifeTM, and evaluated whether it engaged students. This study was conducted over 2 semesters with 39 total students. Surveys and content analysis of transcripts were used to evaluate student engagement. Our results indicate virtual TBLs were engaging for most students. The average engagement score was 7.8 out of 10 with 89.2% of students reporting a score of 6 or above. Students exhibited high levels of cognitive engagement during the clinical application portion of the TBL process. Males felt more emotionally engaged than females, however, most measures of engagement indicated no differences between groups of students (mode of communication, previous technology experience, gender, and performance); therefore, virtual TBLs may be engaging for a broad range of students. 95% of students agreed that this was a worthwhile experience. In light of this evidence, we feel that virtual TBL sessions are valuable, and could be implemented in other online courses.

Improving patient outcomes has long been the rationale supporting calls to reform health care delivery systems and health profession education programs (Greiner, 2002; Institutes of Medicine, 2001, 2004; O’Neil & Pew Health Professions Commission, 1998). In 2003, the Institute of Medicine shared its vision statement for health professions education, asserting that “[a]ll health professionals should be educated to deliver patient-centered care as members of an interdisciplinary team, emphasizing evidence-based practice, quality improvement approaches and informatics” (Knebel & Greiner, 2003, p. 3). Despite the importance placed on teamwork in health sciences education, little attention has been devoted to understanding underlying factors influencing student attitudes towards team learning (Curran, Sharpe, Forristall, & Flynn, 2008). The purpose of this study is to explore the importance of emotional and cultural intelligence in shaping pre-health students’ attitudes towards team-based learning. A non-experimental, cross-sectional study design was used employing correlational and multivariate regression analysis. Findings indicate: a) significant relationships between emotional and cultural intelligence to the value students place on group work; and, b) emotional intelligence accounts for approximately 3% of variance above and beyond the Big Five personality factors in predicting student attitudes towards group work. This study will inform interprofessional education policy and practice in two fundamental ways. First, the study provides insight on the importance of non-academic factors in shaping students’ attitudes towards team-based learning. Secondly, increasing understanding of emotional and cultural intelligence in early stagse of a student’s development influences their preparation for health professions careers.

Team-based testing gives students a chance to earn additional points on individual unit tests by immediately re-taking the test as a team competing against other teams. This instructional approach has enjoyed widening implementation and impressive anecdotal support, but there remains a dearth of empirical studies evaluating its prescribed processes and promoted outcomes. Although the posited effectiveness and appeal of team-based testing seem consistent with the benefits of test-enhanced learning and collaborative learning in general, several limitations are readily apparent. Namely, the current format of the individual and team readiness assurance tests is expressly multiple-choice. Though there are some advantages of this type of question (e.g., ease of administering and grading), the long-term cognitive disadvantage relative to short-answer questions is well documented. Furthermore, it is not clear whether the proposed gain in learning through this format is attributable to the group effect -- be it social or cognitive, or simply to repeated exposure to the test items. Therefore, this study measured the effects of initial test question Format (short-answer vs. multiple-choice), Mode (individual vs. group), and Exposure (once vs. twice) on four delayed measures of learning: Old multiple-choice items (ones students had initially been tested over), Old short-answer items, New multiple-choice items, and New short-answer items. Two weeks after watching a video-recorded lecture, 208 college students took a thirty-item test comprising both the old and new items in multiple-choice and short-answer formats. Results revealed that 1) taking an initial test twice is better than once when the delayed test has old short-answer items or new multiple-choice items, 2) taking an initial short-answer test is better than multiple choice when the delayed test has either old multiple-choice, old short-answer, or new multiple-choice items, and 3) taking an initial team test is no different than taking an individual test when it comes to long-term learning. Particularly noteworthy from these results is how a) the effects of short-answer tests and taking tests twice are not present within Team conditions, and b) taking a multiple-choice test twice is as effective as taking a short-answer test once. Implications are discussed in light of learning theory and instructional practice. / text

This text is a complete team-based and project-based learning course focused on the application of the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) to unique groups of program clients and patients. It is designed to engage undergraduate students in exploration of the different facets of the ICF, in how the ICF differs from medical and social models because of these facets, and how each applies to, and ensures, an awareness of all of the ways in which health affects and is affected by peoples’ characteristics and environments. The text includes readings, digital links, readiness assurance elements, and guidelines for individual and team deliverables, but can also be used as a stand-alone text to provide a rich constructivist approach to understanding the structure of the ICF and how to use it for problem solving and decision-making with a patient/client population. It is the author’s intention that the text be used as suits the instructor, and modified to fit the pre-professional or paraprofessional healthcare students being taught, so while case study examples for rehabilitation are include, the text will lend itself to any patient or client group. / https://dc.etsu.edu/etsu-oer/1008/thumbnail.jpg

The purpose of this study was to test the effectiveness of the readiness assurance process of team-based learning (TBL) in virtually isolated settings. Many Internet sites offer courses for adults to use on their own without access to mentors or other learners. However, educational theory suggests that people learn better with others than by themselves. The focus of this investigation was whether the inclusion of the readiness assurance process would increase participants’ levels of learning based on Bloom’s revised taxonomy within the limits of virtual isolation. In this study an experimental pretest-posttest design was employed. Using a 2- day mini-course about listening in marriage, 117 participants were randomly assigned to three groups. In the TBL group, married couples worked together following the principles of the readiness assurance process. In the independent group, one spouse from a marriage worked alone, also following the principles of the readiness assurance process. In the baseline group, one spouse from a marriage took the pretest and posttest only. The first posttest, called posttest-L, measured lower levels of learning (remembering and understanding). The second posttest, called posttest-D, measured deeper learning (applying and evaluating). Using ANCOVA with the pretests as the covariates, results showed a statistically significant difference in learning gains between the TBL group and the independent group for lower levels of learning (ES = .39). However, statistical significance was not achieved for deeper learning. Moreover, TBL scores and independent scores were no different from the baseline scores for measures of deeper learning. Along with explanations for these results, limitations of the study are described and suggestions for future research are offered.

No description available.