无休止的辩护:医学教育中团队学习研究的范围审查。

IF 5.2 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Jennifer Anne Cleland, Anita Pienkowska, Simon Collingwood Kitto
{"title":"无休止的辩护:医学教育中团队学习研究的范围审查。","authors":"Jennifer Anne Cleland, Anita Pienkowska, Simon Collingwood Kitto","doi":"10.1111/medu.70041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>As team-based learning (TBL's) popularity and implementation have expanded in medical education, so too have TBL studies and accompanying research syntheses. However, earlier reviews hint that the scope of TBL research is narrow and our own observation is that it seems to lack progression. To examine this, our research question was: What is the state of TBL scholarship in medical education, and how has empirical research on TBL in medical education changed over time?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a scoping review of published research. On 4 April 2024, we performed a search across multiple databases (Medline, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, ERIC, and Scopus). We included empirical studies published in English that reported on TBL in medical education. The studies were analysed for study characteristics, research foci and research type (description, justification and clarification).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified and analysed 288 empirical studies. These primarily used quantitative descriptive methods, most commonly surveys. Research often focussed on comparing TBL to other learning approaches. Most studies examined individual characteristics, learning outcomes and/or student engagement. Descriptive studies were commonplace (33%), but the field was largely dominated by justification studies (52%). In contrast, clarification studies, those examining 'how' and 'why' TBL works, were relatively rare (15%) overall, and remained proportionally fewer over time than descriptive and justification studies.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>While we can safely say that TBL is just as effective as other educational approaches in terms of learning outcomes, key claims about TBL remain largely unexplored. Instead, TBL research seems to be stuck in justification rather than following a scientific line of pedagogical inquiry where one study is the foundation for the next. Critical examination of TBL is long overdue to bring greater understanding of the nature and effects of this pedagogical intervention on teaching and learning processes in different contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":18370,"journal":{"name":"Medical Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Endless justification: A scoping review of team-based learning research in medical education.\",\"authors\":\"Jennifer Anne Cleland, Anita Pienkowska, Simon Collingwood Kitto\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/medu.70041\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>As team-based learning (TBL's) popularity and implementation have expanded in medical education, so too have TBL studies and accompanying research syntheses. However, earlier reviews hint that the scope of TBL research is narrow and our own observation is that it seems to lack progression. To examine this, our research question was: What is the state of TBL scholarship in medical education, and how has empirical research on TBL in medical education changed over time?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a scoping review of published research. On 4 April 2024, we performed a search across multiple databases (Medline, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, ERIC, and Scopus). We included empirical studies published in English that reported on TBL in medical education. The studies were analysed for study characteristics, research foci and research type (description, justification and clarification).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified and analysed 288 empirical studies. These primarily used quantitative descriptive methods, most commonly surveys. Research often focussed on comparing TBL to other learning approaches. Most studies examined individual characteristics, learning outcomes and/or student engagement. Descriptive studies were commonplace (33%), but the field was largely dominated by justification studies (52%). In contrast, clarification studies, those examining 'how' and 'why' TBL works, were relatively rare (15%) overall, and remained proportionally fewer over time than descriptive and justification studies.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>While we can safely say that TBL is just as effective as other educational approaches in terms of learning outcomes, key claims about TBL remain largely unexplored. Instead, TBL research seems to be stuck in justification rather than following a scientific line of pedagogical inquiry where one study is the foundation for the next. Critical examination of TBL is long overdue to bring greater understanding of the nature and effects of this pedagogical intervention on teaching and learning processes in different contexts.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18370,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Education\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.70041\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.70041","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

随着团队学习(TBL)在医学教育中的普及和实施,TBL研究和相关的研究综合也在不断发展。然而,早期的评论暗示,TBL的研究范围很窄,我们自己的观察是,它似乎缺乏进展。为了检验这一点,我们的研究问题是:医学教育中TBL研究的现状如何,医学教育中TBL的实证研究如何随着时间的推移而变化?方法:我们对已发表的研究进行了范围综述。在2024年4月4日,我们跨多个数据库(Medline, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, ERIC和Scopus)进行了搜索。我们纳入了以英文发表的关于医学教育中TBL的实证研究。分析了这些研究的研究特点、研究焦点和研究类型(描述、论证和澄清)。结果:对288项实证研究进行了识别和分析。这些主要使用定量描述方法,最常见的是调查。研究通常集中在比较TBL和其他学习方法。大多数研究考察了个人特征、学习成果和/或学生参与度。描述性研究很常见(33%),但该领域主要由论证性研究主导(52%)。相比之下,澄清研究,即研究TBL“如何”和“为什么”起作用的研究,总体上相对较少(15%),并且随着时间的推移,其比例仍低于描述性和正当性研究。讨论:虽然我们可以肯定地说,就学习结果而言,TBL和其他教育方法一样有效,但关于TBL的关键主张在很大程度上仍未被探索。相反,TBL研究似乎陷入了论证,而不是遵循科学的教学探究路线,即一项研究是下一项研究的基础。对TBL的批判性研究早该进行了,以便更好地理解这种教学干预在不同背景下对教与学过程的性质和影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Endless justification: A scoping review of team-based learning research in medical education.

Introduction: As team-based learning (TBL's) popularity and implementation have expanded in medical education, so too have TBL studies and accompanying research syntheses. However, earlier reviews hint that the scope of TBL research is narrow and our own observation is that it seems to lack progression. To examine this, our research question was: What is the state of TBL scholarship in medical education, and how has empirical research on TBL in medical education changed over time?

Methods: We conducted a scoping review of published research. On 4 April 2024, we performed a search across multiple databases (Medline, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, ERIC, and Scopus). We included empirical studies published in English that reported on TBL in medical education. The studies were analysed for study characteristics, research foci and research type (description, justification and clarification).

Results: We identified and analysed 288 empirical studies. These primarily used quantitative descriptive methods, most commonly surveys. Research often focussed on comparing TBL to other learning approaches. Most studies examined individual characteristics, learning outcomes and/or student engagement. Descriptive studies were commonplace (33%), but the field was largely dominated by justification studies (52%). In contrast, clarification studies, those examining 'how' and 'why' TBL works, were relatively rare (15%) overall, and remained proportionally fewer over time than descriptive and justification studies.

Discussion: While we can safely say that TBL is just as effective as other educational approaches in terms of learning outcomes, key claims about TBL remain largely unexplored. Instead, TBL research seems to be stuck in justification rather than following a scientific line of pedagogical inquiry where one study is the foundation for the next. Critical examination of TBL is long overdue to bring greater understanding of the nature and effects of this pedagogical intervention on teaching and learning processes in different contexts.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Education
Medical Education 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
279
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Education seeks to be the pre-eminent journal in the field of education for health care professionals, and publishes material of the highest quality, reflecting world wide or provocative issues and perspectives. The journal welcomes high quality papers on all aspects of health professional education including; -undergraduate education -postgraduate training -continuing professional development -interprofessional education
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信