Scaffolding medical student knowledge and skills: team-based learning (TBL) and case-based learning (CBL)

• Published in: BMC medical education Vol. 21; no. 1; p. 238
• Main Authors: Burgess, Annette, Matar, Elie, Roberts, Chris, Haq, Inam, Wynter, Lucy, Singer, Julian, Kalman, Eszter, Bleasel, Jane
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BioMed Central 26.04.2021; BMC
• Subjects: Behavioral Objectives; Case-based learning; Cognition & reasoning; Curricula; Curriculum; Curriculum Design; Feedback; Group Processes; Humans; Instructional design; Learning; Learning Activities; Learning Processes; Medical education; Medical students; Problem Based Learning; Problem solving; Small group learning; Student Experience; Students, Medical; Teaching methods; Team-based learning; Teams; Thinking Skills; Urology; Medical education; Small group learning; Case-based learning; Team-based learning
• DOI: 10.1186/s12909-021-02638-3
• ISSN: 1472-6920

Two established small-group learning paradigms in medical education include Case-based learning (CBL) and Team-based learning (TBL). Characteristics common to both pedagogies include the use of an authentic clinical case, active small-group learning, activation of existing knowledge and application of newly acquired knowledge. However, there are also variances between the two teaching methods, and a paucity of studies that consider how these approaches fit with curriculum design principles. In this paper we explore student and facilitator perceptions of the two teaching methods within a medical curriculum, using Experience based learning (ExBL) as a conceptual lens. A total of 34/255 (13%) Year 2 medical students completed four CBLs during the 2019 Renal and Urology teaching block, concurrent to their usual curriculum activities, which included weekly TBLs. Questionnaires were distributed to all students (n = 34) and CBL facilitators (n = 13). In addition, all students were invited to attend focus groups. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. In total, 23/34 (71%) of students and 11/13 (85%) of facilitators completed the questionnaires. Twelve students (35%) participated in focus groups. Findings indicate their experience in CBL to be positive, with many favourable aspects that built on and complemented their TBL experience that provided an emphasis on the basic sciences. The learning environment was enriched by the CBL framework that allowed application of knowledge to solve clinical problems within the small groups with consistent facilitator guidance and feedback, their capacity to focus discussion, and associated efficiencies in learning. While the TBL model was integral in developing students' knowledge and understanding of basic science concepts, the CBL model was integral in developing students' clinical reasoning skills. The strengths of CBL relative to TBL included the development of authentic clinical reasoning skills and guided facilitation of small group discussion. Our findings suggest that delivery of a medical curriculum may be enhanced through increased vertical integration, applying TBL in earlier phases of the medical program where the focus is on basic science principles, with CBL becoming more relevant as students move towards clinical immersion.