J Educ Eval Health Prof.  2015;12:34. 10.3352/jeehp.2015.12.34.

A comparison of the effectiveness of the team-based learning readiness assessments completed at home to those completed in class

• Carbrey JM
• Grochowski CO
• Cawley J
• Engle DL

• KMID: 2402041
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2015.12.34

Abstract

PURPOSE
The readiness assurance process (RAP) of team-based learning (TBL) is an important element that ensures that students come prepared to learn. However, the RAP can use a significant amount of class time which could otherwise be used for application exercises. The authors administered the TBL-associated RAP in class or individual readiness assurance tests (iRATs) at home to compare medical student performance and learning preference for physiology content.
METHODS
Using cross-over study design, the first year medical student TBL teams were divided into two groups. One group was administered iRATs and group readiness assurance tests (gRATs) consisting of physiology questions during scheduled class time. The other group was administered the same iRAT questions at home, and did not complete a gRAT. To compare effectiveness of the two administration methods, both groups completed the same 12-question physiology assessment during dedicated class time. Four weeks later, the entire process was repeated, with each group administered the RAP using the opposite method.
RESULTS
The performance on the physiology assessment after at-home administration of the iRAT was equivalent to performance after traditional in-class administration of the RAP. In addition, a majority of students preferred the at-home method of administration and reported that the at-home method was more effective in helping them learn course content.
CONCLUSIONS
The at-home administration of the iRAT proved effective. The at-home administration method is a promising alternative to conventional iRATs and gRATs with the goal of preserving valuable in-class time for TBL application exercises.

Keyword

Cross-sectional studies; Medical education; Medical students; Physiology

MeSH Terms

Cross-Over Studies
Cross-Sectional Studies
Education, Medical
Exercise
Humans
Learning*
Physiology
Students, Medical

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1. Mean physiology assessment scores based on administration method (at-home vs. in-class) (maximum score 12).

• 

  Fig. 2. Analysis of course evaluation data pertaining to the effectiveness of the at-home iRAT and in-class RAP. A five-point Likert-type scale was used for reported experience (1=never, 2=seldom, 3=sometimes, 4= regularly, 5=almost always) (n=108). iRAT, individual readiness assurance tests; gRAT, group readiness assurance tests.

• 

  Fig. 3. Analysis of course evaluation data pertaining to preference for the at-home iRAT vs. the in-class RAP. The majority of students (65%) prefer the at-home iRAT method of administration compared to the in-class method (21%). 14% of students had no specific preference for the method of administration (n=108). iRAT, individual readiness assurance tests; gRAT, group readiness assurance tests.

• 

  Fig. 4. Analysis of course evaluation data pertaining to the effectiveness of the at-home iRAT vs. the in-class RAP in helping the students learn course content. The majority of students (55%) reported that the at-home iRAT method was more effective in helping them learn course content compared to the in-class method (23%) (n=108). 22% of students reported that both formats were equally effective (n=108). iRAT, individual readiness assurance tests; gRAT, group readiness assurance tests.

Reference

1. Burgess AW, McGregor DM, Mellis CM. Applying established guidelines to team-based learning programs in medical schools: a systematic review. Acad Med. 2014; 89:678–688. http://dx.doi:.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000162.

2. Vasan NS, DeFouw DO, Compton S. Team-based learning in anatomy: an efficient, effective, and economical strategy. Anat Sci Educ. 2011; 4:333–339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ase.257.

3. Nieder GL, Parmelee DX, Stolfi A, Hudes PD. Team-based learning in a medical gross anatomy and embryology course. Clin Anat. 2005; 18:56–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ca.20040.

4. Persky AM, Pollack GM. A modified team-based learning physiology course. Am J Pharm Educ. 2011; 75:204. http://dx.doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7510204.

5. Agarwal PK, Karpicke JD, Kang SH, Roediger HL, McDermott KB. Examining the testing effect with open-and closed-book tests. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2008; 22:861–876. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.1391.

6. Gharib A, Phillips W, Mathew N. Cheat sheet or open-book?: a comparison of the effects of exam types on performance, retention, and anxiety. Psychol Res. 2012; 2:469–478. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED537423.

7. Gopalan C, Fox DJ, Gaebelein CJ. Effect of an individual readiness assurance test on a team readiness assurance test in the team-based learning of physiology. Adv Physiol Educ. 2013; 37:61–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/advan.00095.2012.

8. Deardorff AS, Moore JA, McCormick C, Koles PG, Borges NJ. Incentive structure in team-based learning: graded versus ungraded Group Application exercises. J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2014; 11:6. http://dx.doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2014.11.6.