The applicability of a validated team-based learning student assessment instrument to assess United Kingdom pharmacy students' attitude toward team-based learning

Purpose It aimed at testing the validity and reliability of a validated team-based learning student assessment instrument (TBL-SAI) to assess United Kingdom pharmacy students’ attitude toward TBL. Methods TBL-SAI, consisting of 33 items, was administered to undergraduate pharmacy students from two schools of pharmacy each at University of Wolverhampton and University of Bradford were conducted on the data, along with comparison between the two schools. Results Students’ response rate was 80.0% (138/173) in completion of the instrument. Overall, the instrument demonstrated validity and reliability when used with pharmacy students. Sub-analysis between schools of pharmacy did, however, show that four items from Wolverhampton data, had factor loadings of less than 0.40. No item in the Bradford data had factor loadings less than 0.40. Cronbach’s alpha score was reliable at 0.897 for the total instrument: Wolverhampton, 0.793 and Bradford, 0.902. Students showed preference to TBL, with Bradford’s scores being statistically higher (P<0.005). Conclusion This validated instrument has demonstrated reliability and validity when used with pharmacy students. Furthermore students at both schools preferred TBL compared to traditional teaching

A comparison of pharmacy student attainment, progression, and perceptions using team- and problem-based learning: Experiences from Wolverhampton School of Pharmacy, UK

Objective To compare pharmacy student attainment, progression, and perception of team-based (TBL) and problem-based learning (PBL) in comparison to more traditional didactic teaching methods. Design Student attainment and progression were established through comparison of examination data before and after TBL implementation and for the three teaching methodologies. Student perceptions of TBL and PBL were sought via a questionnaire and focus group. Assessment Summative examination performance was used to assess the effect of TBL implementation. Student attainment and progression increased after TBL implementation (attainment grade score: pre-TBL 7.7 vs. 11.19 post-TBL; p = 0.01 and progression: 89% vs. 92%; p = 0.574). Summative examination performance was also used to assess the effect of three teaching methodologies in the same cohort. Student attainment was higher with TBL compared with PBL (grade score: 11.19 vs. 8.73; p ≤ 0.001) and slightly but not significantly worse than those seen with traditional didactic teaching (grade score: 11.19 vs. 11.83; p = 0.355). Student progression was the highest with traditional teaching, then TBL, and finally PBL (96% vs. 92% vs. 88%; p = 0.224). Student perceptions favored TBL compared with PBL but traditional teaching methods were favored over both TBL and PBL. Conclusion The study shows that student attainment and progression were better using TBL compared with PBL, although traditional approaches to teaching saw comparable attainment and progression to TBL. Student perceptions favored traditional teaching more than TBL, which was more liked than PBL