4.6 Article

Assessing the Effectiveness of Case-Based Collaborative Learning via Randomized Controlled Trial

期刊

ACADEMIC MEDICINE
卷 91, 期 5, 页码 723-729

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001004

关键词

-

资金

  1. HILT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Case-based collaborative learning (CBCL) is a novel small-group approach that borrows from team-based learning principles and incorporates elements of problem-based learning (PBL) and case-based learning. CBCL includes a preclass readiness assurance process and case-based in-class activities in which students respond to focused, open-ended questions individually, discuss their answers in groups of 4, and then reach consensus in larger groups of 16. This study introduces CBCL and assesses its effectiveness in one course at Harvard Medical School. Method In a 2013 randomized controlled trial, 64 medical and dental student volunteers were assigned randomly to one of four 8-person PBL tutorial groups (control; n = 32) or one of two 16-person CBCL tutorial groups (experimental condition; n = 32) as part of a required first-year physiology course. Outcomes for the PBL and CBCL groups were compared using final exam scores, student responses to a postcourse survey, and behavioral coding of portions of video-recorded class sessions. Results Overall, the course final exam scores for CBCL and PBL students were not significantly different. However, CBCL students whose mean exam performance in prior courses was below the participant median scored significantly higher than their PBL counterparts on the physiology course final exam. The most common adjectives students used to describe CBCL were engaging, fun, and thought-provoking. Coding of observed behaviors indicated that individual affect was significantly higher in the CBCL groups than in the PBL groups. Conclusions CBCL is a viable, engaging, active learning method. It may particularly benefit students with lower academic performance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据