Team-based learning: assessing the impact on anatomy teaching in People’s Republic of China

Abstract

Objectives

In this study, the effects of team-based learning (TBL) method on the anatomy course for students in People’s Republic of China were assessed.

Methods

The students were randomly divided into the traditional lecture-based teaching group (traditional learning [TL] group, 99 students) and TBL teaching group (98 students). The TBL method required the students to prepare the assigned content in advance and discuss some specific topics in small groups. The test scores and questionnaire were applied to evaluate the effects of the two methods.

Results

The students in TBL group had higher examination scores (81.70±8.53 vs 74.41±8.27, F[1,195] =124.6, p<0.01). The ratios of students with excellent (13.27% vs 9.09%, χ²[1] =4.00, p=0.041) and good scores (25.51% vs 16.16%, χ²[1] =4.85, p=0.027) were markedly increased in the TBL than the TL group, and the ratio of students who had just managed to pass was decreased (17.34% vs 32.33% in TL group, χ²[1] =5.91, p=0.015). The students in TBL group significantly achieved some improvement in mutual communication ability (χ²[1] =7.54, p=0.006), expression ability (χ²[1] =4.930, p=0.026), generalization capacity (χ²[1] =4.08, p=0.043), cooperative ability cultivation (χ²[1] =5.04, p=0.024), knowledge extension (χ²[1] =4.50, p=0.034), and enthusiasm mobilization (χ²[1] =4.27, p=0.039).

Conclusion

TBL could improve not only the test scores of the students, but also their study enthusiasm, initiative learning ability, communication ability, and team awareness.

Keywords:

• anatomy
• lecture-based learning
• student
• team-based learning

This article is referred to by:

Medical students’ perspective on the place of team-based learning in the curriculum

Supplementary materials

Questionnaire for the effects of the anatomy course

Table

Acknowledgments

We thank Professor Ruimao Zheng from Harvard University for refining the English writing in this work.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.